[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Jul 29 10:10:15 2019 New Revision: 273874 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273874&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-07-29 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/91267

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- Testing returning false which is basically what we did before (just quicker). This may be an argument for making the lattice expandable.

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The problem is in the - old_vr = get_value_range (var); + old_vr = get_lattice_entry (var); change because get_value

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #6 from David Binderman --- Revision 273791 seems ok, so range is now [273791, 273794]. The culprit seems to be r273792 | rguenth | 2019-07-25 11:25:13 +0100 (Thu, 25 Jul 2019) | 64 lines

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #5 from David Binderman --- Revision 273794 seems broken, so range is now [273788, 273794].

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- Revision 273788 seems ok, so range is now [273788, 273800].

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #3 from David Binderman --- Revision 273775 seems ok, so range is now [273775, 273800].

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- Reduced C source code is a, b; c(f) { char *d, *e; while (d) { if (f) if (e) g(); h(e - (d + a)); b = e - d; d = i(); } } Problem seems to occur between revisions 27375

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/91267] [10 regression] SEGV in value_range_base::equal_p

2019-07-26 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91267 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0