https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111334
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3)
> > This involves the template <optab>di3_fake:
> > (define_insn "<optab>di3_fake"
> > [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r,&r,&r")
> > (sign_extend:DI
> > (any_div:SI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "r,r,0")
> > (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "r,r,r"))))]
> > ""
> > {
> > return loongarch_output_division ("<insn>.w<u>\t%0,%1,%2", operands);
> > }
> > [(set_attr "type" "idiv")
> > (set_attr "mode" "SI")
> > (set (attr "enabled")
> > (if_then_else
> > (match_test "!!which_alternative == loongarch_check_zero_div_p()")
> > (const_string "yes")
> > (const_string "no")))])
> >
> >
> > I think there is a problem with the implementation of this template.
> > First, the instructions generated in the template are [u]div.w[u], etc. The
> > description of such instructions in the instruction manual is that if the
> > upper 32 bits are not extended by the 31st bit sign then the result is
> > uncertain.
>
> I think this reason alone makes the pattern looks very wrong.
>
> I'll take a look...
Hmm, I guess we should just make di3_fake an UNSPEC because there is no way to
use div.w and its friends out of <optab:any_div><mode>3.
