[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=90662 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Patch committed in r272281.
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00793.html
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's another one since my reducer finished :)
struct {
int a[0];
} b;
int c;
int d[0];
void e() {
b.a[c] = d[c + 1];
b.a[c + 1] = d[c];
}
-O3 needed on an aarch64 target
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks for all the small test cases!
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- I also see this when building 502.gcc_r from SPEC
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #5)
> $ cat x.i
> typedef enum { a } b;
> typedef struct {
> int c[0];
> } d;
> typedef struct {
> int *data;
> } e;
> typedef struct {
> e buffer;
> } f;
> int g, h;
> int i();
> int i(f *j, d *k, b l, int m) {
> if (l)
> if (m) {
> h = j->buffer.data[0];
> k->c[g] = k->c[g] * 8;
> }
> return 0;
>
add missed }
$ cat x.i
$ cat x.i
typedef enum { a } b;
typedef struct {
int c[0];
} d;
typedef struct {
int *data;
} e;
typedef struct {
e buffer;
} f;
int g, h;
int i();
int i(f *j, d *k, b l, int m) {
if (l)
if (m) {
h = j->buffer.data[0];
k->c[g] = k->c[g] * 8;
}
return 0;
}
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
$ cat x.i
typedef enum { a } b;
typedef struct {
int c[0];
} d;
typedef struct {
int *data;
} e;
typedef struct {
e buffer;
} f;
int g, h;
int i();
int i(f *j, d *k, b l, int m) {
if (l)
if (m) {
h = j->buffer.data[0];
k->c[g] = k->c[g] * 8;
}
return 0;
$ gcc -fpreprocessed -O2 -fsanitize=thread -c x.i
during GIMPLE pass: strlen
x.i: In function ‘i’:
x.i:13:5: internal compiler error: in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827
13 | int i(f *j, d *k, b l, int m) {
| ^
0x667691 fold_binary_loc(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*, tree_node*,
tree_node*)
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/fold-const.c:9827
0xcc9bed fold_build2_loc(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*, tree_node*,
tree_node*)
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/fold-const.c:12338
0x11b4a62 get_stridx
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:327
0x11b4a62 get_stridx
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:293
0x11bb65c strlen_check_and_optimize_stmt
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:3721
0x11bb65c strlen_dom_walker::before_dom_children(basic_block_def*)
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:4009
0x18dfca2 dom_walker::walk(basic_block_def*)
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/domwalk.c:312
0x11b0ea0 execute
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_current/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:4089
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > So my patch survives bootstrap and regression tests, can you please Martin > take the issue? > > Patch candidate: > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c > index 944650cecd5..a9b1147a2e7 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ get_stridx (tree exp) > off = TREE_OPERAND (ptr, 1); > /* Scale the array index by the size of the element >type (normally 1 for char). */ > - off = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (off), off, > + off = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (eltsize), off, >eltsize); > ptr = TREE_OPERAND (ptr, 0); > } Of course this shouldn't make a difference. The issue is likely a type mismatch and 'off' being a pointer type? Probably mem_ref_offset () should be used to extract it.
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- So my patch survives bootstrap and regression tests, can you please Martin take the issue? Patch candidate: diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c index 944650cecd5..a9b1147a2e7 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ get_stridx (tree exp) off = TREE_OPERAND (ptr, 1); /* Scale the array index by the size of the element type (normally 1 for char). */ - off = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (off), off, + off = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (eltsize), off, eltsize); ptr = TREE_OPERAND (ptr, 0); }
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- I'm testing a patch candidate..
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- I also see this crash, when bootstrapping the compiler with -O3. ../../../trunk/libgcc/libgcc2.c during GIMPLE pass: strlen ../../../trunk/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c: In function ‘execute_stack_op’: ../../../trunk/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:526:1: internal compiler error: in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827
[Bug tree-optimization/90866] [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2019-06-13 Known to work||9.1.0 Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail||10.0
