From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 4B4B13858D39; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 08:52:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4B4B13858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708591937;
	bh=V2Y4K2TI9m9qc2m3zpu9/2caOPpPA6bQozbpEjy/nmo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xZAByiOiDNP4nULDKRKtUHawlcqQPm2I7N3KHJ2I8zs9mmVF6C+khWz3spf26tC7n
	 L5IOJA8yUCcXe7hvqfZR/AaQMltBbVjV3KdO4FPAV/tJuW6YYlfQrLwuJC4VnwL7lA
	 I4upsfwFAL6olIugRDB9CyzwzmyANVfB1UtNaflk=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/113988] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower: internal
 compiler error: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5470
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 08:52:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113988-4-YgVsJ6t4Pc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113988

--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113988
>=20
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Yeah, I was worried about partial ints.  Or it could be punt if TYPE_MODE=
s are
> different and at least one of them is BLKmode.

Well, then you can also check whether one mode is BLKmode.

Btw, I think forwprop is lucky if it really changes

  _2 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<uint256_t>(x);

to

  _2 =3D (uint256_t) x_1(D);

because match on its own would create

  _2 =3D (uint256_t) x;

which would be invalid GIMPLE.  So are you sure it's not
update-address-taken first rewriting x to a register?

For 'foo' I see x becomes a register already during into-SSA so
another fix might be to re-consider and make x a non-register
because of that V_C_E?  (and hopefully the match pattern would
then not be applied, but I'm not 100% sure on that)

In principle there's nothing wrong about the transform it's
the use of uint256_t that makes this problematic.

So maybe we should bite the bullet and try the memcpy folding
fix even at this stage ...=