Hi! We ICE on the following testcase, because ivcanon calls gimple_build_builtin_unreachable but doesn't expect it would need vops. BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP I've introduced yesterday doesn't need vops and should be used in that case instead of BUILT_IN_TRAP which needs them.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2023-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR tree-optimization/108655 * ubsan.cc (sanitize_unreachable_fn): For -funreachable-traps or -fsanitize=unreachable -fsanitize-trap=unreachable return BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP decl rather than BUILT_IN_TRAP. * gcc.dg/pr108655.c: New test. --- gcc/ubsan.cc.jj 2023-01-02 09:32:38.393053992 +0100 +++ gcc/ubsan.cc 2023-02-03 11:40:47.047399386 +0100 @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ sanitize_unreachable_fn (tree *data, loc ? (flag_sanitize_trap & SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE) : flag_unreachable_traps) { - fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_TRAP); + fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP); *data = NULL_TREE; } else if (san) --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c.jj 2023-02-03 11:46:39.533190031 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c 2023-02-03 11:46:28.272356439 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/108655 */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-w -O1 -funreachable-traps" } */ + +void +foo (void) +{ + int i, j; + for (; i;) + ; + for (; i < 6;) + for (j = 0; j < 6; ++j) + i += j; + __builtin_trap (); +} Jakub