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 A85003858C78; Tue,  5 Mar 2024 13:06:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A85003858C78
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709644003;
	bh=Rn1dpO2PinqfaIt/MIcR/E0sTbrZnsAQBNUxozlldos=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=vn6LiHavYr8e6Rhx74UE0rUJrcVfiG8SPcKx0e1RRIU7SCfwpWdqD2wjwdNZqO6Mk
	 sRnzBcECOY+qywIZNHAjrR3njM8ayVxXHhRQYB8VCTH3jArvYE80Pd2lHG/nl51Ybx
	 L9hszaI+TH21vzfJ5WgJiC5MpguYfNWIzRZiu1PA=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114232] [14 regression] ICE when building rr-5.7.0 with
 LTO on x86
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 13:06:43 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114232-4-Ab5KOf1BVs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114232-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114232-4@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=3D114232

--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114232
>=20
> --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Either change those too, or the splitter needs some variant what to do if=
 there
> is a mismatch.
> Though, optimize_size implies optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun), so if a
> named pattern uses && optimize_size and the insn it splits into uses
> optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun), it shouldn't fail.  The other direct=
ion is
> not always true, optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun) can be true just bec=
ause
> the function
> is cold, not just because it is -Os.

I think optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun) isn't always true if
optimize_size is since it looks at the function-specific setting
of that flag, so you'd have to use opt_for_fn (cfun, optimize_size).=