Is the attached refinement of this patch previously applied to mainline
ok for backport to gcc 6? I have bootstrapped and tested without
regressions on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.
This patch differs from the original mainline patch in the following
regards:
1. Certain commentary changes are omitted because the context to which
they applied is missing from GCC 6.
2. A typo in a test case has been corrected. The typo was discovered
during scrutiny of the backport regression testing results. I will
momentarily submit a patch to correct the same test case on main line.
On 03/24/2017 04:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:04:33PM -0600, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
>> PR 80103 provides a test case which results in an internal
>> compiler error when invoked with -mno-direct-move -mpower9-dform-
>> vector target options. The internal compiler error results because
>> these two target options are incompatible with each other.
>>
>> The enclosed patch simply disables this particular combination of
>> target options, terminating gcc with an error message instead of
>> producing an internal compiler error. Additionally, this patch
>> includes new comments to address omissions from a patch committed
>> on 2017/03/23 which deals with conflicts between the
>> -mno-power9-vector and -mcpu=power9 target options.
>>
>> This patch has been bootstrapped and tested with no regressions on
>> both powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.
>> Is this ok for the trunk?
>
> This looks good, please apply. Thanks,
>
>
> Segher
>
>
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-06-28 Kelvin Nilsen <kel...@gcc.gnu.org>
Backport from mainline
2017-03-27 Kelvin Nilsen <kel...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR target/80103
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_option_override_internal): Add
special handling for target option conflicts between dform options
(-mpower9-dform, -mpower9-dform-vector, -mpower9-dform-scalar) and
-mno-direct-move.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-06-28 Kelvin Nilsen <kel...@gcc.gnu.org>
Backport from mainline
2017-03-27 Kelvin Nilsen <kel...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR target/80103
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr80103-1.c: New test.
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 249572)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (working copy)
@@ -4295,6 +4295,33 @@ rs6000_option_override_internal (bool global_init_
| OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_VECTOR);
}
+ if ((TARGET_P9_DFORM_SCALAR || TARGET_P9_DFORM_VECTOR)
+ && !TARGET_DIRECT_MOVE)
+ {
+ /* We prefer to not mention undocumented options in
+ error messages. However, if users have managed to select
+ power9-dform without selecting power9-vector, they
+ already know about undocumented flags. */
+ if ((rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE)
+ && ((rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_VECTOR) ||
+ (rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_SCALAR) ||
+ (TARGET_P9_DFORM_BOTH == 1)))
+ error ("-mpower9-dform, -mpower9-dform-vector, -mpower9-dform-scalar"
+ " require -mdirect-move");
+ else if ((rs6000_isa_flags_explicit & OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE) == 0)
+ {
+ rs6000_isa_flags |= OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE;
+ rs6000_isa_flags_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_DIRECT_MOVE;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ rs6000_isa_flags &=
+ ~(OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_SCALAR | OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_VECTOR);
+ rs6000_isa_flags_explicit |=
+ (OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_SCALAR | OPTION_MASK_P9_DFORM_VECTOR);
+ }
+ }
+
if (TARGET_P9_DFORM_SCALAR && !TARGET_UPPER_REGS_DF)
{
/* We prefer to not mention undocumented options in
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr80103-1.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr80103-1.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr80103-1.c (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "do not override -mcpu" { powerpc*-*-* } { "-mcpu=*" } {
"-mcpu=power9" } } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_p9vector_ok } */
+/* { dg-options "-mpower9-dform-vector -mno-direct-move" } */
+/* { dg-excess-errors "expect error due to conflicting target options" } */
+/* Since the error message is not associated with a particular line
+ number, we cannot use the dg-error directive and cannot specify a
+ regexp to describe the expected error message. The expected error
+ message is: "-mpower9-dform, -mpower9-dform-vector,
+ -mpower9-dform-scalar require -mdirect-move" */
+
+int a;
+void b (__attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16))) char c)
+{
+ a = ((__attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (2 * sizeof (long)))) long) c)[0];
+}
