https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70177
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2016-03-10
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
derive_constant_upper_bound is called with
i_11(D) >= -1 ? 126 - (unsigned int) i_11(D) : 127
and as it is a COND_EXPR, obviously calling it for the 2 operand
extract_ops_from_tree doesn't work.
Calling extract_ops_from_tree_1 of course fixes the ICE (why haven't we renamed
it to extract_ops_from_tree BTW and just use overloading?), though the question
is if we can't do better for the COND_EXPR (in that case we'd need to pass it
to the *_ops function and handle COND_EXPR in there).
But we don't even handle INTEGER_CST - variable.
It is a pitty we got COND_EXPR, instead of say MAX_EXPR <126 - (unsigned)
i_11(D), 127>.
--- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c.jj 2016-02-24 14:52:16.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c 2016-03-10 23:47:45.407770775 +0100
@@ -2742,9 +2742,9 @@ static widest_int
derive_constant_upper_bound (tree val)
{
enum tree_code code;
- tree op0, op1;
+ tree op0, op1, op2;
- extract_ops_from_tree (val, &code, &op0, &op1);
+ extract_ops_from_tree_1 (val, &code, &op0, &op1, &op2);
return derive_constant_upper_bound_ops (TREE_TYPE (val), op0, code, op1);
}
