[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez --- fixed
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c29c9d6a7d80ece7e08eb546ca4a1ba1430a9b3 commit r12-5274-g6c29c9d6a7d80ece7e08eb546ca4a1ba1430a9b3 Author: Aldy Hernandez Date: Sat Nov 13 12:16:40 2021 +0100 Drop tree overflow in irange setter. Drop meaningless overflow that may creep into the IL. gcc/ChangeLog: PR tree-optimization/103207 * value-range.cc (irange::set): Drop overflow. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.dg/pr103207.c: New test.
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez --- Created attachment 51796 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51796=edit patch in testing
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > Sure. (OVF) in the IL are meaningless, we do try to prune them but it still > happens that they appear. Ughh, you've mentioned this before. Thanks.
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Sure. (OVF) in the IL are meaningless, we do try to prune them but it still happens that they appear.
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 --- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez --- That is, is the overflowed 0 allowed in the switch's case?
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez --- We're trying to build a range for [-1, 0(OVF)] in find_case_label_range: int_range_max label_range (CASE_LOW (min_label), case_high); and case_high has an overflow. This causes us to fail in irange::verify_range() on the compare_values: tree lb = tree_lower_bound (i); tree ub = tree_upper_bound (i); int c = compare_values (lb, ub); gcc_checking_assert (c == 0 || c == -1); The question is, is this 0(OVF) allowed? [local count: 1073741824]: switch (i_2(D)) [0.00%], case -1: [50.00%], case 0(OVF): [50.00%]>
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0
[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2021-11-12 Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org, ||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|[12 Regression] ICE in |[12 Regression] ICE in |verify_range, at|verify_range, at |value-range.cc:385 |value-range.cc:385 since ||r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Started with r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a.
