https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120434
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3dde39e597f48832208f423fb20f29674ce49ae commit r16-1409-gf3dde39e597f48832208f423fb20f29674ce49ae Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Wed Jun 11 07:03:04 2025 +0200 ranger: Handle the theoretical case of GIMPLE_COND with one succ edge during expansion [PR120434] On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:51:25AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > Edge range should be fine, and really that assert doesnt really need to be > there. > > Where the issue could arise is in gimple-range-fold.cc in > fold_using_range::range_of_range_op() where we see something like: > > else if (is_a<gcond *> (s) && gimple_bb (s)) > { > basic_block bb = gimple_bb (s); > edge e0 = EDGE_SUCC (bb, 0); > edge e1 = EDGE_SUCC (bb, 1); > > if (!single_pred_p (e0->dest)) > e0 = NULL; > if (!single_pred_p (e1->dest)) > e1 = NULL; > src.register_outgoing_edges (as_a<gcond *> (s), > as_a <irange> (r), e0, e1); > > Althogh, now that I look at it, it doesn't need much adjustment, just the > expectation that there are 2 edges. I suppose EDGE_SUCC (bb, 1) cpould > potentially trap if there is only one edge. we'd just have to guard it and > alloow for that case This patch implements that. 2025-06-11 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR middle-end/120434 * gimple-range-fold.cc: Include rtl.h. (fold_using_range::range_of_range_op): Handle bb ending with GIMPLE_COND during RTL expansion where there is only one succ edge instead of two.
