https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2024-04-26
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown |14.0
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
int main ()
{
<bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
c.b = 0;
return 0;
}
Confirmed. It seems we are confused during inlining and substitute
'c' for 'f' because both are readonly. But the write to f is to an
automatic var and thus not readonly memory.
Note the write to f is introduced by SRA so I think it's SRAs fault:
void e (const struct a f)
{
+ const int f$b;
int _1;
int iftmp.0_4;
<bb 2> :
- _1 = f.b;
+ f$b_3 = f.b;
+ _1 = f$b_3;
if (_1 != 0)
goto <bb 3>; [INV]
else
goto <bb 4>; [INV]
<bb 3> :
- iftmp.0_4 = f.b;
+ iftmp.0_4 = f$b_3;
<bb 4> :
+ f.b = f$b_3;
d (f);
The store is broken. I think a readonly aggegate never needs to be
re-materialized as it cannot be changed (do we track possible writes?)
