From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB8603858D35 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:37:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org BB8603858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org BB8603858D35 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1709807873; cv=none; b=lMka2k/xssutX/lUvBGUkpnofhFGqu/7cuB1FtZKW9npJ/VxBjRuP/rVbsp/39yoewnOOcgofOBnz1eu1V4JD3MndJwi8B6ZOZ0mgvR6xz801Qo9HPmeTprOTebexGLCKCcqAk2XNePHtDBJllAWZEN+G5zREPGZ4xEMfo0cIqI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1709807873; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tfI7YQTi4BkxKALhtuzwrSOXrbHf8GDHrNdjFcmYmbo=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=DQy3W+jbVsfDygul3UnxHYem8KsDKnkWQ02ZVVde32sbssrClbnJMSBnyTocsYvxrcZtVOKb1yMFjlZke5iPYQ59xHoq0+isrHDUqKP1uuj2TskR9FDf2t8Bs+4ysJsOdAYZsiPDv6PLz+F9rzh+ZAoUCfEPN2FHqzsHKHDKhKg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709807871; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=6lMNNlbpvSs3q+cARnEnCEgLJHNrkWLXbL1msDBiaz0=; b=DJzw4km4w6Rs6qy7nwh1Pro/uRKue/49mRMcG1nLmBcLzSVmmA6n88kHZK/EIfDQ/qaqXA GJgkQTCrUpH3Mj5PwD1qtwJ8kqoOxygtle62kqUPjtTnX6Exl8rCBTZlq1j35M9x5flpBY XTGfADKKKJBmxrHKhpCiTi3hBx+1qYc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-464-c5gTO7sXNRquECGlOiM1Pg-1; Thu, 07 Mar 2024 05:37:49 -0500 X-MC-Unique: c5gTO7sXNRquECGlOiM1Pg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1A3803EC6; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.45.226.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E192166B33; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 427Ablhf2815104 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Mar 2024 11:37:47 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 427AbkL22815103; Thu, 7 Mar 2024 11:37:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 11:37:46 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Uros Bizjak Cc: Richard Biener , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Jeff Law , segher@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] combine: Fix ICE in try_combine on pr112494.c [PR112560] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <2737spr1-459p-3oon-n852-qn034s55p66r@fhfr.qr> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 11:11:35AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > Since you CCed me - looking at the code I wonder why we fatally fail. > > The following might also fix the issue and preserve more of the > > rest of the flow of the function. > > > > If that works I'd prefer it. But I'll defer approval to the combine > > maintainer which is Segher. > > Your patch is basically what v1 did [1], but it was suggested (in a > reply by you ;) ) that we should stop the attempt to combine if we > can't handle the use. So, the v2 patch undoes the combine and records > a nice message in this case. My understanding of Richi's patch is that it it treats the non-COMPARISON_P the same as if find_single_use fails, which is a common case that certainly has to be handled right and it doesn't seem that we are giving up completely for that case. So, I think it is reasonable to treat the non-COMPARISON_P *cc_use_loc as NULL cc_use_loc. Jakub