https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
Bug ID: 70045
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE error: mismatching comparison
operand types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The testcase:
int a, b, d, e, f;
int c[9];
void
fn1 ()
{
e = 1;
for (; e >= 0; e--)
{
d = 1;
for (; d >= 0; d--)
{
f = 0;
for (; f <= 1; f++)
{
a = 0;
for (; a < 9; a++)
{
b = 0;
for (; b < 2; b++)
c[a + b] = 3;
}
}
}
}
}
ICEs for me on aarch64 with -Ofast -floop-interchange with ISL 0.15:
mycrash.c: In function 'fn1':
mycrash.c:4:1: error: bogus comparison result type
fn1 ()
^~~
int128_t
graphite_IV.16_10 = _36 <= 1;
mycrash.c:4:1: error: mismatching comparison operand types
int128_t
_Bool
if (graphite_IV.16_15 < _8)
mycrash.c:4:1: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0xb540b6 verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool)
$SRC/gcc/tree-cfg.c:5125
0xa47300 execute_function_todo
$SRC/gcc/passes.c:1958
0xa4750b do_per_function
$SRC/gcc/passes.c:1645
0xa47653 execute_todo
$SRC/gcc/passes.c:2010
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
I don't know if ISL is at fault here or it just exposes some other bug at tree
level
