https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104156
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Last reconfirmed| |2022-01-21
Version|unknown |12.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |needs-bisection
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. -O2 -funswitch-loops is enough to produce the failure. and yes the
first difference in the IR (minus the debug statements) between -g and -g0 is
150t.unswitch .
--- t.gk.c.150t.unswitch 2022-01-21 07:55:45.860933512 +0000
+++ t.c.150t.unswitch 2022-01-21 07:55:45.623933488 +0000
@@ -1,6 +1,30 @@
;; Function main (main, funcdef_no=1, decl_uid=2004, cgraph_uid=2,
symbol_order=5) (executed once)
+
+SSA replacement table
+N_i -> { O_1 ... O_j } means that N_i replaces O_1, ..., O_j
+
+.MEM_24 -> { .MEM_42 }
+Incremental SSA update started at block: 2
+Number of blocks in CFG: 36
+Number of blocks to update: 5 ( 14%)
Without the debug statements unswitch does something.
