On 08/27/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 9:14 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/24/2018 01:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
PR 87059 points out an ICE in the recently enhanced VRP code
that was traced back to a MIN_EXPR built out of operands of
types with different sign by expand_builtin_strncmp().
The attached patch adjusts the function to make sure both
operands have the same type, and to make these mismatches
easier to detect, also adds an assertion to fold_binary_loc()
for these expressions.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux.
Martin
PS Aldy, I have not tested this on powerpc64le.
gcc-87059.diff
PR tree-optimization/87059 - internal compiler error: in set_value_range
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/87059
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_strncmp): Convert MIN_EXPR operand
to the same type as the other.
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Assert expectation.
I bootstrapped (but did not regression test) this on ppc64le and also
built the linux kernel (which is where my tester tripped over this problem).
Approved and installed on the trunk.
Please remove the assertion in fold_binary_loc again, we do not do this kind
of assertions there.
What kind of assertions are appropriate here and what's a better
place to make sure the MIN/MAX expression operands are valid, i.e.,
have the same type or sign or whatever the downstream assumptions
are?
Martin
