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 55E823945C06; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 17:10:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 55E823945C06
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/99122] [10/11 Regression] ICE in force_constant_size, at
 gimplify.c:733
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 17:10:24 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99122-4-qOt1K7Ry30@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99122-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99122-4@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, 17 Feb 2021 17:10:24 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99122

--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With the patch from comment #3, the following sequence with the problematic
call:

  x.1_26 =3D __builtin_alloca_with_align (_24, 8);
  g (WITH_SIZE_EXPR <*x.1_26, _22>, WITH_SIZE_EXPR <*x.1_26, _22>);
  __builtin_stack_restore (saved_stack.2_15);

is turned by einline into:

  x.1_26 =3D __builtin_alloca_with_align (_24, 8);
  x_27 =3D MEM <double> [(struct  *)x.1_26];
  y_29 =3D MEM <double> [(struct  *)x.1_26];
  _30 =3D x_27 u<=3D y_29;
  _31 =3D ~_30;
  _32 =3D (int) _31;
  __builtin_stack_restore (saved_stack.2_15);

Which looks OKish, under the circumstances, to me.  Let me look at the seco=
nd
testcase now.=