[Bug tree-optimization/114902] New: wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug tree-optimization/114902] New: wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

            Bug ID: 114902
           Summary: wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp
                    -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts"
                    on x86_64-linux-gnu
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
  Target Milestone: ---

It appears to be a recent regression as it doesn't reproduce with 13.2. 

Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/7ssP5W57E


[587] % gcctk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcctk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 15.0.0 20240430 (experimental) (GCC) 
[588] % 
[588] % gcctk -O3 -fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations
-fno-tree-dominator-opts small.c
[589] % ./a.out
Floating point exception
[590] % 
[590] % gcctk -O3 small.c; ./a.out
[591] % 
[591] % cat small.c
volatile int a, c;
unsigned b = 1;
int main() {
  for (; a < 2; a++)
    if (a)
      for (; c < 2; c++) {
        int d = -1, e = -(-d & ~b), f = -~(1 && b % a);
        a % f || a;
        if (d <= e)
          e = a;
        a = e;
      }
  return 0;
}

[Bug target/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |14.0
            Summary|wrong code at -O3 with      |[14/15 Regression] wrong
                   |"-fno-tree-vrp              |code at -O3 with
                   |-fno-expensive-optimization |"-fno-tree-vrp
                   |s -fno-tree-dominator-opts" |-fno-expensive-optimization
                   |on x86_64-linux-gnu         |s -fno-tree-dominator-opts"
                   |                            |on x86_64-linux-gnu
          Component|tree-optimization           |target
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-05-01
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Target|                            |x86_64-linux-gnu

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.

Here is a testcase which does not depedent on division by zero trapping:
```

volatile int a, c;
unsigned b = 1;
int main() {
  a = 1;
  for (; c < 2; c++) {
    unsigned t = 1 & ~b;
    int e = -t;
    int f = -~(!!(1 % a));
    if (a == 0) __builtin_trap();
    if (e >= -1)
      e = 1;
    a = e;
  }
  return 0;
}
```

The testcase works on aarch64-linux-gnu with no issues.

The difference between GCC 13 and 14 is on the gimple level but the code looks
correct there.

In GCC 13 .optimized has:
```
  b.0_1 = b;
  _2 = b.0_1 & 1;
  _3 = _2 + 4294967295;
  e_16 = (int) _3;
  _13 = e_16 >= -1;
  e_11 = _13 ? 1 : e_16;
```


While in 14  .optimized has:
```
  b.0_1 = b;
  _2 = ~b.0_1;
  t_13 = _2 & 1;
  _3 = -t_13;
  e_14 = (int) _3;
  _10 = e_14 >= -1;
  e_9 = _10 ? 1 : e_14;
```

Both are valid and correct.
But then it goes wrong after that.
I have not looked where though.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|target                      |rtl-optimization

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks like the issue is during combine.

After combine we have:
```
   12: r113:SI=[`b']
   13: r112:SI=~r113:SI
      REG_DEAD r113:SI
      REG_EQUAL ~[`b']
   14: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
   15: {r109:SI=sign_extract(r112:SI,0x1,0);clobber flags:CC;}
      REG_UNUSED flags:CC
   18: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
   19: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
   22: r117:SI=0x1
   21: flags:CCZ=cmp(zero_extract(r112:SI,0x1,0),0)
      REG_DEAD r112:SI
   23: r106:SI={(flags:CCZ==0)?r109:SI:r117:SI}
      REG_DEAD r117:SI
      REG_DEAD r109:SI
      REG_DEAD flags:CCZ
      REG_EQUAL {(flags:CCZ==0)?r109:SI:0x1}
```

insn 21 is wrong.



```

Trying 15 -> 18:
   15: {r109:SI=sign_extract(r112:SI,0x1,0);clobber flags:CC;}
      REG_DEAD r112:SI
      REG_UNUSED flags:CC
   18: flags:CCGC=cmp(r109:SI,0xffffffffffffffff)
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
        (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
            (compare:CCZ (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                    (const_int 1 [0x1])
                    (const_int 0 [0]))
                (const_int 0 [0])))
        (set (reg/v:SI 109 [ eD.2798 ])
            (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                (const_int 1 [0x1])
                (const_int 0 [0])))
    ])
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
        (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
            (compare:CCZ (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                    (const_int 1 [0x1])
                    (const_int 0 [0]))
                (const_int 0 [0])))
        (set (reg/v:SI 109 [ eD.2798 ])
            (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                (const_int 1 [0x1])
                (const_int 0 [0])))
    ])
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
        (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
            (compare:CCZ (and:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                    (const_int 1 [0x1]))
                (const_int 0 [0])))
        (set (reg/v:SI 109 [ eD.2798 ])
            (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                (const_int 1 [0x1])
                (const_int 0 [0])))
    ])
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
        (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
            (compare:CCZ (and:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                    (const_int 1 [0x1]))
                (const_int 0 [0])))
        (set (reg/v:SI 109 [ eD.2798 ])
            (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
                (const_int 1 [0x1])
                (const_int 0 [0])))
    ])
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg/v:SI 109 [ eD.2798 ])
    (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
        (const_int 1 [0x1])
        (const_int 0 [0])))
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
    (compare:CCZ (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 112 [ _2 ])
            (const_int 1 [0x1])
            (const_int 0 [0]))
        (const_int 0 [0])))
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg:QI 115 [ _10 ])
    (ne:QI (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (const_int 0 [0])))
allowing combination of insns 15 and 18
original costs 4 + 4 = 12
replacement costs 4 + 4 = 12
modifying other_insn    19: r115:QI=flags:CCZ!=0
      REG_DEAD flags:CCGC
deferring rescan insn with uid = 19.
modifying insn i2    15: {r109:SI=sign_extract(r112:SI,0x1,0);clobber
flags:CC;}
      REG_UNUSED flags:CC
deferring rescan insn with uid = 15.
modifying insn i3    18: flags:CCZ=cmp(zero_extract(r112:SI,0x1,0),0)
      REG_DEAD r112:SI
deferring rescan insn with uid = 18.
```

We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CCZ. that can't be
right.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Note this is almost definitely a latent bug exposed by some change. Might be
interesting to see what change exposed it but not so much really.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
here is a reduced testcase:
```

[[gnu::noipa]]
int f(int b)
{
    int tt1 = ~b;
    int t = 1 & tt1;
    int e = -t;
    int tt = e >= -1;
    if (tt) return 0;
    __builtin_trap();
}

int main()
{
  for(int i = -1;i < 2; i++)
    f(i);
}
```

Note ` -O1 -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-forwprop -fno-tree-ccp 
-fno-tree-dominator-opts` is needed to reproduce it with this one. The generate
gimple is the same between GCC 13 and 14 here.

But the first difference is in combine:
```
Trying 7 -> 8:
    7: {r106:SI=r105:SI&0x1;clobber flags:CC;}
      REG_DEAD r105:SI
      REG_UNUSED flags:CC
    8: {r107:SI=-r106:SI;clobber flags:CC;}
      REG_DEAD r106:SI
      REG_UNUSED flags:CC
Successfully matched this instruction:
(parallel [
        (set (reg:SI 107 [ e_5 ])
            (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 105 [ tt1_3 ])
                (const_int 1 [0x1])
                (const_int 0 [0])))
        (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
    ])
allowing combination of insns 7 and 8
original costs 4 + 4 = 8
replacement cost 4
deferring deletion of insn with uid = 7.
modifying insn i3     8: {r107:SI=sign_extract(r105:SI,0x1,0);clobber
flags:CC;}
      REG_DEAD r105:SI

```

This is correct but it goes down hill after like as I mentioned in comment #2.

So it does look like a latent bug after all.


If someone does a bisect of this testcase, I am 99% sure you find
r14-4810-ge28869670c9879 is where the failure was introduced. For the original
testcase and the one in comment #1 might find a different commit due to gimple
level being different.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> here is a reduced testcase:

> Note ` -O1 -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-forwprop -fno-tree-ccp 
> -fno-tree-dominator-opts`


This testcase is broken in GCC 13 for mips64-linux-gnu with the added option
-march=octeon.
And it has been broken since at least 4.9.4.
        andi    $4,$4,0x1
        xori    $4,$4,0x1
        teq     $4,0
        j       $31
        move    $2,$0

That is:
$4 = $4 & 0x1
$4 = $4 ^ 1
trapif $4 == 0

That is the earliest compiler version I could test where I Know that
sign_extract shows up in RTL.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Looks like the issue is during combine.
> 
> We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CCZ. that can't be
> right.

Why is that not correct?  zero_extend is preferred over sign_extend, and both
are equivalent when only checking for zero.

Is there something wrong in target code here, perhaps?

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Looks like the issue is during combine.
> > 
> > We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CCZ. that can't be
> > right.
> 
> Why is that not correct?  zero_extend is preferred over sign_extend, and both
> are equivalent when only checking for zero.

For Equality they are equivalent yes. But when doing `a >=s 0` a sign
extend/extract will cause different results from a zero extend/extract.

> Is there something wrong in target code here, perhaps?

For arm, x86 and mips?

For testcase in comment #4 on x86_64:
Before combine we start with:
```
(insn 16 15 17 2 (parallel [
            (set (reg:SI 106 [ t_4 ])
                (and:SI (reg:SI 105 [ tt1_3 ])
                    (const_int 1 [0x1])))
            (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
        ]) "/app/example.cpp":6:9 617 {*andsi_1}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 105 [ tt1_3 ])
        (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
            (nil))))
(insn 17 16 20 2 (parallel [
            (set (reg:SI 107 [ e_5 ])
                (neg:SI (reg:SI 106 [ t_4 ])))
            (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
        ]) "/app/example.cpp":7:9 804 {*negsi_1}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 106 [ t_4 ])
        (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
            (nil))))
(insn 20 17 21 2 (set (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
        (compare:CCGC (reg:SI 107 [ e_5 ])
            (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]))) "/app/example.cpp":8:16 11
{*cmpsi_1}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 107 [ e_5 ])
        (nil)))
(insn 21 20 22 2 (set (reg:QI 109)
        (ge:QI (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
            (const_int 0 [0]))) "/app/example.cpp":8:16 1125 {*setcc_qi}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
        (nil)))
(insn 22 21 23 2 (set (reg:SI 108 [ _1 ])
        (zero_extend:SI (reg:QI 109))) "/app/example.cpp":8:16 169
{*zero_extendqisi2}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:QI 109)
        (nil)))
(insn 23 22 24 2 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (compare:CCZ (reg:SI 108 [ _1 ])
            (const_int 0 [0]))) "/app/example.cpp":9:8 7 {*cmpsi_ccno_1}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 108 [ _1 ])
        (nil)))
(jump_insn 24 23 30 2 (set (pc)
        (if_then_else (eq (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
                (const_int 0 [0]))
            (label_ref 30)
            (pc))) "/app/example.cpp":9:8 1130 {*jcc}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (int_list:REG_BR_PROB 7 (nil)))
 -> 30)
```

We first combine 16->17 into:
```
(parallel [
        (set (reg:SI 107 [ e_5 ])
            (sign_extract:SI (reg:SI 105 [ tt1_3 ])
                (const_int 1 [0x1])
                (const_int 0 [0])))
        (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
    ])
```
which is correct and good

And then when combining 17 -> 20 combine does:
Trying 17 -> 20:
   17: {r107:SI=sign_extract(r105:SI,0x1,0);clobber flags:CC;}
      REG_DEAD r105:SI
      REG_UNUSED flags:CC
   20: flags:CCGC=cmp(r107:SI,0xffffffffffffffff)
      REG_DEAD r107:SI
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
    (compare:CCZ (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 105 [ tt1_3 ])
            (const_int 1 [0x1])
            (const_int 0 [0]))
        (const_int 0 [0])))
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg:QI 109)
    (ne:QI (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (const_int 0 [0])))

Which is also replacing insn 21 incorrectly.
We go from `-(a&1) >= -1` (which is always true) to `(a&1) != 0`.
Maybe we go to `(a&1) <= 1` (still always true) and we mess up somehow to `(a &
1) != 0`

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|14.0                        |14.2

--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 14.1 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 14.2.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CCZ. that can't be
> right.

Why not?  We prefer zero_extend whenever it has the same result.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(_extract, btw.)

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So, is there a simplified testcase that *actually* shows any *actual* problem?

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 115092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b93a0ae153ef70a82ff63e67926a01fdab9956b

commit r15-520-g0b93a0ae153ef70a82ff63e67926a01fdab9956b
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed May 15 18:37:17 2024 +0200

    combine: Fix up simplify_compare_const [PR115092]

    The following testcases are miscompiled (with tons of GIMPLE
    optimization disabled) because combine sees GE comparison of
    1-bit sign_extract (i.e. something with [-1, 0] value range)
    with (const_int -1) (which is always true) and optimizes it into
    NE comparison of 1-bit zero_extract ([0, 1] value range) against
    (const_int 0).
    The reason is that simplify_compare_const first (correctly)
    simplifies the comparison to
    GE (ashift:SI something (const_int 31)) (const_int -2147483648)
    and then an optimization for when the second operand is power of 2
    triggers.  That optimization is fine for power of 2s which aren't
    the signed minimum of the mode, or if it is NE, EQ, GEU or LTU
    against the signed minimum of the mode, but for GE or LT optimizing
    it into NE (or EQ) against const0_rtx is wrong, those cases
    are always true or always false (but the function doesn't have
    a standardized way to tell callers the comparison is now unconditional).

    The following patch just disables the optimization in that case.

    2024-05-15  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR rtl-optimization/114902
            PR rtl-optimization/115092
            * combine.cc (simplify_compare_const): Don't optimize
            GE op0 SIGNED_MIN or LT op0 SIGNED_MIN into NE op0 const0_rtx or
            EQ op0 const0_rtx.

            * gcc.dg/pr114902.c: New test.
            * gcc.dg/pr115092.c: New test.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114902] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dominator-opts" on x86_64-linux-gnu

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[14/15 Regression] wrong    |[14 Regression] wrong code
                   |code at -O3 with            |at -O3 with "-fno-tree-vrp
                   |"-fno-tree-vrp              |-fno-expensive-optimization
                   |-fno-expensive-optimization |s -fno-tree-dominator-opts"
                   |s -fno-tree-dominator-opts" |on x86_64-linux-gnu
                   |on x86_64-linux-gnu         |
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 15.1+ so far.