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 E169D3857039; Wed,  7 Oct 2020 17:22:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E169D3857039
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/97315] [11 Regression] ICE in choose_value,
 at gimple-ssa-evrp.c:282 since
 r11-3690-gebc77ce3a4c70730b4e38d68f88693eadbdc8712
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:22:54 +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: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-97315-4-Fih31Az3fx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-97315-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-97315-4@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: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:22:55 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97315

--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On October 7, 2020 5:35:02 PM GMT+02:00, amacleod at redhat dot com
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97315
>
>--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
>(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
>> I get something similar with this test case:
>>=20
>> int a;
>> void b() {
>>   if (a >=3D 2147483647)
>>     c(a + 1);
>> }
>
>This one is slightly different.
>
>Still triggering in the same place, but the difference in the singleton
>is the
>result of the calculation of:
>
>   [+INF, +INF] + 1
>
>EVRP is reporting  [-INF, -INF], and range-ops is calculating  [+INF,
>+INF]
>
>Is there a correct answer, or does it matter?=20=20=20

While we print +inf it's just a value we can apply +1 to in the "do what I
mean" sense. So I think for arithmetic we shouldn't saturate, even when
overflow is undefined (instead as, you say, UNDEFINED would be the correct
optimistic result).

>The code we imported for handling overflow always sets the bound to
>+INF if an
>overflow happens, and it happens on both bounds, so we get  [+INF,
>+INF].  I'm
>guessing because its a single value EVRP actually folded the value
>regardless
>of overflow?=20=20=20
>
>Or maybe it should be  UNDEFINED?=20
>
>Andrew=