tree-optimization/110556 - tail merging still pre-tuples

The stmt comparison function for GIMPLE_ASSIGNs for tail merging
still looks like it deals with pre-tuples IL.  The following
attempts to fix this, not only comparing the first operand (sic!)
of stmts but all of them plus also compare the operation code.

	PR tree-optimization/110556
	* tree-ssa-tail-merge.cc (gimple_equal_p): Check
	assign code and all operands of non-stores.

	* gcc.dg/torture/pr110556.c: New testcase.

2 files changed, 59 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr110556.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr110556.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bc60db8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr110556.c
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-fno-tree-fre -fno-delete-dead-exceptions -fnon-call-exceptions" } */
+
+typedef __INT32_TYPE__ int32_t;
+typedef __INT64_TYPE__ int64_t;
+
+static int64_t __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
+safe_mul_func_int64_t_s_s(int64_t si1, int64_t si2)
+{
+  return ((((si1 > 0) && (si2 > 0) && (si1 > ( (9223372036854775807L) / si2)))
+           || ((si1 > 0) && (si2 <= 0) && (si2 < ( (-9223372036854775807L -1) / si1)))
+           || ((si1 <= 0) && (si2 > 0) && (si1 < ( (-9223372036854775807L -1) / si2)))
+           || ((si1 <= 0) && (si2 <= 0) && (si1 != 0) && (si2 < ( (9223372036854775807L) / si1))))
+          ? ((si1)) : si1 * si2);
+}
+
+static int32_t g_93 = 0x947A4BBFL;
+static int32_t tt = 6;
+int64_t ty, ty1;
+
+static void func_34(void)
+{
+ ty=safe_mul_func_int64_t_s_s (g_93, -1L) ;
+}
+static void func_30(void)
+{
+  ty1=safe_mul_func_int64_t_s_s(0, tt);
+}
+static void func_6(void)
+{
+ for (int g_9 = 5; (g_9 >= 0); g_9 -= 1)
+ {
+  func_34();
+  func_30 ();
+ }
+}
+
+int main ()
+{
+ func_6();
+}
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.cc
index 13bc8532..33acb64 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.cc
@@ -1165,6 +1165,9 @@ gimple_equal_p (same_succ *same_succ, gimple *s1, gimple *s2)
       return operand_equal_p (lhs1, lhs2, 0);
 
     case GIMPLE_ASSIGN:
+      if (gimple_assign_rhs_code (s1) != gimple_assign_rhs_code (s2))
+	return false;
+
       lhs1 = gimple_get_lhs (s1);
       lhs2 = gimple_get_lhs (s2);
       if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) != SSA_NAME
@@ -1172,11 +1175,20 @@ gimple_equal_p (same_succ *same_succ, gimple *s1, gimple *s2)
 	return (operand_equal_p (lhs1, lhs2, 0)
 		&& gimple_operand_equal_value_p (gimple_assign_rhs1 (s1),
 						 gimple_assign_rhs1 (s2)));
-      else if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) == SSA_NAME
-	       && TREE_CODE (lhs2) == SSA_NAME)
-	return operand_equal_p (gimple_assign_rhs1 (s1),
-				gimple_assign_rhs1 (s2), 0);
-      return false;
+
+      if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) != SSA_NAME
+	  || TREE_CODE (lhs2) != SSA_NAME)
+	return false;
+
+      gcc_checking_assert (gimple_num_args (s1) == gimple_num_args (s2));
+      for (i = 0; i < gimple_num_args (s1); ++i)
+	{
+	  t1 = gimple_arg (s1, i);
+	  t2 = gimple_arg (s2, i);
+	  if (!gimple_operand_equal_value_p (t1, t2))
+	    return false;
+	}
+      return true;
 
     case GIMPLE_COND:
       t1 = gimple_cond_lhs (s1);