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 033CB388EC0C; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:40:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 033CB388EC0C
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:40:06 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner 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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-97360-4-qjxFVhUAQ2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-97360-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-97360-4@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: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:40:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97360

--- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #25)
> Wonder if it was suppose to be something like:
>=20
>=20
>    /* Vector pair and vector quad support.  */
>    if (TARGET_EXTRA_BUILTINS)
>      {
> -      tree oi_uns_type =3D make_unsigned_type (256);
> -      vector_pair_type_node =3D build_distinct_type_copy (oi_uns_type);
> +      vector_pair_type_node =3D make_unsigned_type (256);
>        SET_TYPE_MODE (vector_pair_type_node, POImode);
>        layout_type (vector_pair_type_node);
>        lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (vector_pair_type_node,
>                                               "__vector_pair");
>=20=20
> -      tree xi_uns_type =3D make_unsigned_type (512);
> -      vector_quad_type_node =3D build_distinct_type_copy (xi_uns_type);
> +      vector_quad_type_node =3D make_unsigned_type (512);
>        SET_TYPE_MODE (vector_quad_type_node, PXImode);
>        layout_type (vector_quad_type_node);
>        lang_hooks.types.register_builtin_type (vector_quad_type_node,

So this passed bootstrap and regtesting with no regressions.

Is this really the correct fix?  Don't we want a distinct type compared to =
the
unsigned type returned from make_unsigned_type()?=