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 394573858282; Fri, 17 May 2024 08:08:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 394573858282
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1715933318;
	bh=kgEsSBfFk8sJL7ut/3cDLqMynFBDxNLrmH+/VululTI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=f1bZxqeahMYKWeC+sJsU+wa/FgqYY6G1vS9mqxa/zFmVBnnUMCLi1PjHFAOwvNC0S
	 EdcjIZnX1FhnoDhZbENabb+jHgYPXQcpn9ZJRmqWvzdgGKnEu12MldI1HLHmAqYuOh
	 thBTG8mkbT1VztbkKkrv/oKgtVPAH/EeNopvJs60=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/115129] [12/13/14/15 regression] ICE on recursive realloc
 call with LTO
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 08:08:37 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-115129-4-zhSwuvrdjs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115129-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115129-4@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=3D115129

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah, because that realloc definition makes realloc CONST, but the replacement
builtin is not.

Honza, I know we still have that loop pattern detection bug detecting
memcpy as memcpy.  What's our (IPA?) strategy in these kind of situations?
Should we avoid messing with builtin implementation attributes?

We can of course sanity-check at folding time and leave realloc w/o virtual
operands alone, but ...=