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 291D838930C3; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:20:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 291D838930C3
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1587705638;
 bh=Hh3zn2SVmPlpnzUwzKkn6Si569f3IU547Ajpox/IMKE=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=FJpbpC9i0t/KOkbTAUeZPTyoAQwNp5LXa0+Qd043vVAxZPdlSe9NHjs+3SKquiwbG
 4karITe0cmxNNvBllPPbpk5tOVfMNkqxz5P0mcA2Sk3rCXTIWPXBlxPitbbxygzll+
 j5lAn1VMu1HHPeGl3QLFmePmT2lvivLfXXt9tR0E=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/94734] [10 Regression] Program crashes when
 compiled with -O2 since r10-1892-gb9ef6a2e04bfd013
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:20:37 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94734-4-RQs60kpA1i@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94734-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94734-4@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, 24 Apr 2020 05:20:38 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94734

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
> THe whole point of that change is to not require a dominating load if the
> object comes from the stack.

Yeah, but I find that flawed.  One can do it after performing
get_ref_base_and_extent and verifying the offset is const and the whole acc=
ess
must be within the object, or one could do it with VR verification again
verifying the access is fully within the object, but otherwise it can't be =
done
and one needs to find dominating load, just the noload needs to handle also
ARRAY_REFs etc., not only MEM_REFs.=