[Bug ipa/64545] failed gcc build: internal compiler error: in inline_small_functions, at ipa-inline.c:1693

["ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64545

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Also breaks profiledbootstrap autotester [1].

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-01/msg00258.html
>From gcc-bugs-return-473156-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jan 14 09:45:05 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-473156-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15127 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2015 09:45:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14941 invoked by uid 55); 14 Jan 2015 09:44:58 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/64511] [5 Regression] ICE at -O3 with -g enabled on x86_64-linux-gnu
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:45:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64511-4-NsMvYup73e@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg01150.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1503

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd511

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd511
>
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> x % x for x == 0 is undefined behavior, so perhaps with the exception of
> sanitization we can just assume it is not 0 and thus fold x % x to 0.
> Or does e.g. Ada/Java require something different?

See the inconsistent handing of % vs. / in fold (we fold 0 % x to 0
but preserve literal 0 % 0 - we don't fold 0 / x to 0).

In my view we should just go ahead and fold, though with
-fnon-call-exceptions one may do

 try {
  x % x
  abort ();
 } catch (...) {
 }

and throw from inside a trap handler.  Which means that one can
catch undefined behavior.  IMHO -fnon-call-exceptions and sub-flags
like -ftrapv tell GCC to treat the specific undefined behavior as
defined - namely trapping.  We don't have a special flag for
divide-by-zero-traps though (it's not exactly "overflow").

So maybe with making the folding more consistent we should simply
add such flag, -fdivide-by-zero-traps which also makes modulo-by-zero
trap?