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 0867F38582B1; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:35:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0867F38582B1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710506131;
	bh=S7YyWBMDaUZqm+ZzEpp/RJ+aVVU1pxra3WpuLnQTA2c=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jFSwNuRoSBr2HoBdYmNhqkjnrVtyM1W1DjASskE9MI8taohGxbKXiV10of2APhFgE
	 sUSHUe2fRPMxZ5rBIkMr2oW9+H2SWwESvk5LwntsTAE5DxUSpefdTUIqe93Y/6zEfu
	 w48O4Hci8/mDAMfYj7OYoGwIuSHTfOwbO70u5GFg=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug analyzer/114286] ICE: in deref_rvalue, at
 analyzer/region-model.cc:2762 with _Atomic _BitInt() and -fanalyzer
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:35:29 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-114286-4-PJqepNJWOc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114286-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114286-4@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=3D114286

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-03-15
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Doesn't seem to be _BitInt related,
struct S { long long a[16]; } s;

struct S
foo (void)
{
  struct S r;
  __atomic_load (&s, &r, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
  return r;
}
ICEs the same way.  Guess analyzer doesn't handle properly atomic_load which
can't be optimized into the 1/2/4/8/16 byte variants and is handled by
libatomic.
Makes me wonder about other __atomic operations on such types, __atomic_sto=
re,
__atomic_exchange and __atomic_compare_exchange on such types.

And to answer my question,
void
bar (struct S x)
{
  __atomic_store (&s, &x, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
}
doesn't ICE,
struct S
baz (struct S x)
{
  struct S r;
  __atomic_exchange (&s, &x, &r, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
}
does and
int
qux (struct S *e, struct S *d)
{
  return __atomic_compare_exchange (&s, e, d, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED,
__ATOMIC_RELAXED);
}
doesn't.=