public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/65875] [5/6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:37:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-65875-4-2979xrPHaT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-65875-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875

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

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

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 35395
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35395&action=edit
gcc5-pr65875.patch

Untested fix.  IMHO vrp_visit_phi_node was missing the vr_result VR_VARING
handling if the value range turned into varying only during update_value_range,
and also update_value_range wasn't telling the caller if it changed it into
varying late.

That said, the testcase has conditionally undefined variable, and checking
whether all the VRP decisions (first and second pass) are sane, would be nice,
Richard, could you please have a look?
E.g. I find it strange that h has VR [0, LONG_MAX] before VRP2, when it really
has just values 0 or 1, so should be ideally [0, 1].  Or that i has value range
[1, LONG_MAX] - it is conditionally undefined (that is ignored), and
conditionally negation of an int variable (only if that int variable is
negative).  The negated int variable is [1, +INF(OVF)] because INT_MIN might
overflow, perhaps if we really need to preserve the OVF flag, we have to use
[1, +INF(OVF)] again rather than just [1, 0x7fffffff] :(.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-04-24 16:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-24 12:16 [Bug c/65875] New: internal compiler error with gcc 5.1 megahallon at gmail dot com
2015-04-24 12:29 ` [Bug tree-optimization/65875] [5/6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-24 16:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-04-27  9:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-27 11:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-27 12:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-27 12:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-28  7:51 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-28  8:16 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-04-28  8:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-65875-4-2979xrPHaT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).