[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- The issue is that unroll-and-jam applies RPO VN on the transformed body but that leaves the IL in "indetermined" state (it returns a TODO to make it valid again). But unroll-and-jam then continues to transform another loop and in using the tree_unroll_loop helper runs into tree_transform_and_unroll_loop performing IL checking checking_verify_flow_info (); checking_verify_loop_structure (); checking_verify_loop_closed_ssa (true, loop); if (new_loop) checking_verify_loop_closed_ssa (true, new_loop); in particular the loop-specific LC SSA verifiers run function-wide SSA verification. In generally IL verification in these kind of helpers is frowned upon since it easily results in quadraticness when checking is enabled. I'm "fixing" the loop-local LC SSA verifier to not perform function-wide SSA verification but the real fix would be to delete all of the above (and rely on after-pass IL verification).
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae113080a9f98e807db239f3ad2157c64324542f commit r13-6138-gae113080a9f98e807db239f3ad2157c64324542f Author: Richard Biener Date: Mon Feb 20 09:54:37 2023 +0100 tree-optimization/108825 - checking ICE with unroll-and-jam The issue is that unroll-and-jam applies RPO VN on the transformed body but that leaves the IL in "indetermined" state (it returns a TODO to make it valid again). But unroll-and-jam then continues to transform another loop and in using the tree_unroll_loop helper runs into tree_transform_and_unroll_loop performing IL checking on the whole function. While the real fix is to elide all such checking I'm only making the loop-local LC SSA verifier not perform function-wide SSA verification at this point. PR tree-optimization/108825 * tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc (verify_loop_closed_ssa): For loop-local verfication only verify there's no pending SSA update. * gcc.dg/torture/pr108825.c: New testcase.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- I will have a look.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #9 from David Binderman --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #8) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #6) > > > git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044dae51caea3c, > > > which is 6 commits. > > > > Most likely r13-3875-g9e11ceef165bc0 . > > Agreed. Over to Richard for their best advice. Bisection finished. It does appear to be this revision.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de --- Comment #8 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #6) > > git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044dae51caea3c, > > which is 6 commits. > > Most likely r13-3875-g9e11ceef165bc0 . Agreed. Over to Richard for their best advice.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #6) > git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044dae51caea3c, > which is 6 commits. Most likely r13-3875-g9e11ceef165bc0 .
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #6 from David Binderman --- git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:bd044dae51caea3c, which is 6 commits.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #5 from David Binderman --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #4) > git range now seems to be g:59ad8b684dd67e17 .. g:3b54cc9d04c2efb2, > which is 103 commits. git range now seems to be g:0cbb756fe9c8e13a .. g:3b54cc9d04c2efb2, which is 26 commits.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- git range now seems to be g:59ad8b684dd67e17 .. g:3b54cc9d04c2efb2, which is 103 commits.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #3 from David Binderman --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #2) > Trying revision 1191a412bb17a734. Seems bad. Trying 59ad8b684dd67e17.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- Trying revision 1191a412bb17a734.
[Bug tree-optimization/108825] [13 Regression] error during GIMPLE pass: unrolljam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords||ice-checking
Summary|error during GIMPLE pass: |[13 Regression] error
|unrolljam |during GIMPLE pass:
||unrolljam
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2023-02-16
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Slightly better testcase:
```
int safe_mul_func_uint8_t_u_u_ui2, g_231, g_277_1, g_568,
func_35___trans_tmp_10;
int g_81[7];
extern int g_96[];
char func_35___trans_tmp_11;
static inline int safe_add_func_int32_t_s_s(int si1, int si2) { return si1 >
647 - si2 ?: si1; }
void func_35() {
for (; g_277_1; g_277_1 += 1) {
g_231 = 0;
for (; g_231 <= 6; g_231 += 1) {
func_35___trans_tmp_10 =
safe_add_func_int32_t_s_s(g_81[g_231], g_568 || g_96[1]);
func_35___trans_tmp_11 =
func_35___trans_tmp_10 * safe_mul_func_uint8_t_u_u_ui2;
g_81[g_231] = func_35___trans_tmp_11;
}
}
}
```
Confirmed:
[local count: 47303694]:
if (0 != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 23651847]:
_94 = _7 * prephitmp_71;
[local count: 47303694]:
_97 = (int) _94;
Obvious the cfgcleanup will remove the branch and it will become valid but I
have no idea if it is latent otherwise.
