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. I almost called out the assertion. We generally verify this kind of stuff in the verify_gimple routines and haphazard asserts in the folder would be just that -- haphazard.
The value in Martin's assertion is to catch the goof earlier. But I won't lose sleep if we drop the assert. jeff
