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 4D6DD385B833; Fri,  3 Apr 2020 10:18:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4D6DD385B833
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1585909114;
 bh=qgUnsBl7aRzI+53sLh3hKlhvKvVvKW9J9aI16FHGxSE=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=ILBk+5K+LBP24CvdFhZGX2VhuPgK5gT/WH33GQfaWq+jevg+lPPhrJ5JO7m7BGtSi
 3somx8IMKnlYxhcwh6vs5tHMBRK59cKmbY+OA8tOh3Fmgd31L9DbWHQpSsS9tY2okC
 9hzsfYzmIsacmGi6exJxIJulh2qGNo/Ppt8xxDnw=
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/93621] [10 Regression] ICE in redirect_call_stmt_to_callee, 
 at cgraph.c:1443 since r10-5567
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:18:34 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-93621-4-Nr1AH1cPxw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-93621-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-93621-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:18:34 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D93621

--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12)
> > Having said that, I am not sure where to best fix this so late in the
> > GCC 10 development cycle.
>=20
> So the problem is that thunk is expanded on the adjusted decl but we
> still keep the adjustments and later fail to apply them?
>=20
> I guess we have two options:
>  1) force thunk expansion to happen on original decls (before cloning)
>     so the body ends up being same as for ordinary function

I was thinking about this too.  I will try to look into expand_thunk
whether I can leave the call statement mostly alone (apart from the
thunk transform itself, of course).

>  2) remove the adjustments after expansion - this should IMO work
>     under the assumption that optimization passes don't insert
>     non-trivial code into the thunk before they expand the thunk (i.e.
>     if you want to adjust it in ipa-sra you will want to first produce
>     the thunk and then do adjustement)
> It seems to me that 2 should be not that hard to implement
> Does that make sense?

Unfortunately I don't think so.  The adjustment is attached to the
callee (just like in the past the skip_args bitmap was - and we're
only skipping arguments in the testcase), so you cannot just remove it
in one caller.  Or am I missing something?=