Hi,

This patch is to fix the typos in the move_sese_region_to_fn.
As mentioned here [1], I tried to debug the test case
gcc.dg/graphite/pr83359.c with trunk, but I found it didn't
go into the hunk guard with "if (moved_orig_loop_num)".  So
I switched to commit 555758de90074 (also reproduced the ICE
with 555758de90074~ to ensure my used command step is correct),
I noticed the compilation of the test case only covers the
hunk

	else
	  {
	    moved_orig_loop_num[dloop->orig_loop_num] = -1;
	    dloop->orig_loop_num = 0;
	  }

it doesn't touch the hunk

	if ((*larray)[dloop->orig_loop_num] != NULL
	    && get_loop (saved_cfun, dloop->orig_loop_num) == NULL)
	  {
	    if (moved_orig_loop_num[dloop->orig_loop_num] >= 0
		&& moved_orig_loop_num[dloop->orig_loop_num] < 2)
	      moved_orig_loop_num[dloop->orig_loop_num]++;
	    dloop->orig_loop_num = (*larray)[dloop->orig_loop_num]->num;
	  }

so the following hunk using dloop and guarded with 
"if (moved_orig_loop_num[orig_loop_num] == 2)" doesn't get executed.

It explains why the problem doesn't get exposed before.

By looking to the code using dloop, I think it's a copy/paste typo,
the assertion

	      gcc_assert ((*larray)[dloop->orig_loop_num] != NULL
			  && (get_loop (saved_cfun, dloop->orig_loop_num)
			      == NULL));

would like to ensure the condition in the previous
loop iterating is true, that is:

	if ((*larray)[dloop->orig_loop_num] != NULL
	    && get_loop (saved_cfun, dloop->orig_loop_num) == NULL)

But in that context, I think the expected original number has been
assigned to variable orig_loop_num by extracting from the arg0
of IFN_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS call.  So replace those ones.

Is it ok for trunk?

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576367.html

BR,
Kewen
-----
gcc/ChangeLog:

	* tree-cfg.c (move_sese_region_to_fn): Fix typos on dloop.