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 A16253858D34; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:11:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A16253858D34
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711552290;
	bh=DhsxbQuh4qGDgbH+i5VOiF44+Aly7/c/s8KA8Q7NTwA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RAZ6nHIsPke1ZzmMMi/w0CUeyxGZuGRROAWzUxVzGuEfT1/KKI9MYFnPXVv0nk1dU
	 1YddlJEH6MkhxbfWgSb2VoHH3c8+K79rLRl6Efz1ER6aNVTzn/qo2cOmhQNaIZclzt
	 YzEk8GpHOyXF6fxvH9ZMXNXKFn+CDd+ZP9VMVbpE=
From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114492] Invalid use of gcc_assert (notably in
 gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-ldp-fusion.cc)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:11:30 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
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-114492-4-hGAYQ3idlc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114492-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114492-4@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=3D114492

--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >Please be advised that the argument is *not* evaluated with release chec=
king
>=20
> Actually it is evaluated with release checking as release checking enables
> assert checking.

Ah, I should have followed ENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING.  Still worrisome.

> The 2 I see which might be an issue is:
>   gcc_assert (crtl->ssa->verify_insn_changes (changes));
>=20
>     gcc_assert (rtl_ssa::restrict_movement_ignoring (*changes[i],
> is_changing));

(Four instances, two each of these two.)=