Is calculix big ?
Could you give me the testcase to reproduce it?
For + gcc_assert (biggest_size >= mode_size);
I currently don't have an idea to fix it.
But for + mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (lhs));
I think I can fix it.
if (!gimple_store_p (stmt))
{
tree lhs = gimple_get_lhs (stmt);
mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (lhs));
If it is not a STORE, I assume it always has a LHS. Turns out that my original
thought is incorrect.
I think I know the fix.
[email protected]
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-09-12 17:17
To: Juzhe-Zhong; gcc-patches
CC: rdapp.gcc; kito.cheng; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] RISC-V: Support Dynamic LMUL Cost model
I did some benchmarks and, at least for calculix the differences are
miniscule. I'd say we can stick with the current approach and improve
as needed.
However, I noticed ICEs here:
+ gcc_assert (biggest_size >= mode_size);
and here:
+ mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (lhs));
when compiling calculix.
Regards
Robin
