https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102140

--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<ja...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df8a6a1fcab38b9e4c5bcb8b9a39f847c18e9026

commit r10-10675-gdf8a6a1fcab38b9e4c5bcb8b9a39f847c18e9026
Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 8 20:14:30 2022 +0100

    rs6000: Fix up vspltis_shifted [PR102140]

    The following testcase ICEs, because
    (const_vector:V4SI [
                    (const_int 0 [0]) repeated x3
                    (const_int -2147483648 [0xffffffff80000000])
                ])
    is recognized as valid easy_vector_constant in between split1 pass and
    end of RA.
    The problem is that such constants need to be split, and the only
    splitter for that is:
    (define_split
      [(set (match_operand:VM 0 "altivec_register_operand")
            (match_operand:VM 1 "easy_vector_constant_vsldoi"))]
      "VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_P (<MODE>mode) && can_create_pseudo_p ()"
    There is only a single splitting pass before RA, so after that finishes,
    if something gets matched in between that and end of RA (after that
    can_create_pseudo_p () would be no longer true), it will never be
    successfully split and we ICE at final.cc time or earlier.

    The i386 backend (and a few others) already use
    (cfun->curr_properties & PROP_rtl_split_insns)
    as a test for split1 pass finished, so that some insns that should be split
    during split1 and shouldn't be matched afterwards are properly guarded.

    So, the following patch does that for vspltis_shifted too.

    2022-02-08  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

            PR target/102140
            * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (vspltis_shifted): Return false also if
            split1 pass has finished already.

            * gcc.dg/pr102140.c: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 0c3e491a4e5ae74bfbed6d167d403d262b5a4adc)
  • [Bug target/102140] [12 Regress... cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

Reply via email to