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 A541F384F4BA; Wed, 22 May 2024 08:29:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A541F384F4BA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1716366560;
	bh=3ZTdOToCeXjwjZ+Ypft3Ze9M+Qw6Cs1qTp7zRBLvfqQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OW0XkXwD1MOZlYx8T/PDpQm9tmKXhRwid01yH2SKlBTh2Zzbjx7hulLNS9sZllKwL
	 KGrmoC3BTGYm0r+Fi1fCSaDrQp2qeO6t0iUYDL3ftRtE6gAj0uXf/USsfJ+N8/pTXu
	 vOZHLb0TdeqWl/omNFYNqt3//ZKGkeLG8+wc6dso=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/115138] [15 Regression] Bootstrap
 compare-debug fail after r15-580-gf3e5f4c58591f5
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 08:29:19 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 15.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build, wrong-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: 15.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-115138-4-KihifBSBSl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115138-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115138-4@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=3D115138

--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > I've pushed a fix for PR115137, it's likely this fixes also this bug.
>=20
> unfortunately, not; at least, on my fastest x86 machine (AVX512) - the fa=
il
> is the same (different CSWTCH.xxx numbers between the stage1 compiler and
> the stage2 - the numbers are unchanged with the r15-753 [.154 and .155
> respectively]).

Note stage1 and stage2 are not expected to compare equal - it's stage2 and
stage3 objects that are compared.

> I don't expect the machine to make any difference - and I saw that this w=
as
> also reported by at least one person for Linux too (although bootstrapping
> with O3, I think).

I think that was an ICE with prange.=