[Bug tree-optimization/61964] [4.8/4.9/4.10 regression] krb5 database propagation enters infinite loop; reduced test case

["rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61964

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-07-31
                 CC|                            |tom at codesourcery dot com
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
            Summary|[4.8 regression] krb5       |[4.8/4.9/4.10 regression]
                   |database propagation enters |krb5 database propagation
                   |infinite loop; reduced test |enters infinite loop;
                   |case                        |reduced test case
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.4

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Anders Kaseorg from comment #4)
> Another bisect between 4.7 and 4.8 shows that the bug appeared with r189321
> (bug 52009).
> 
> My test case has triggers the bug in more versions than Kerberos does: as
> far as I can tell, Kerberos was unaffected until r192604.

Thanks - that pin-points it.  tail-merging concludes that

  <bb 3>:
  _11 = n_7->next;
  MEM[(struct head *)_10].first = _11;
  goto <bb 5>;

and

  <bb 4>:
  _13 = n_7->next;
  _10->next = _13;

are equivalent.  But they are not - the stores are performed using
different alias sets.

Note that the actual miscompile happens during RTL instruction scheduling.

In 4.9 and trunk tail-merging is faced with

  <bb 3>:
  _11 = n_7->next;
  MEM[(struct head *)&heads][k.1_8].first = _11;
  goto <bb 5>;

  <bb 4>:
  _13 = n_7->next;
  _10->next = _13;

instead but I bet the issue is still there.

So it simply does (on the 4.8 branch):

    case GIMPLE_ASSIGN:
      lhs1 = gimple_get_lhs (s1);
      lhs2 = gimple_get_lhs (s2);
      if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) != SSA_NAME
          && TREE_CODE (lhs2) != SSA_NAME)
        return (vn_valueize (gimple_vdef (s1))
                == vn_valueize (gimple_vdef (s2)));

which shows that we value-number the VDEFs the same.

IMHO VDEF value-numbering is dangerous here.

I have a patch.