Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:00 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> > So please be constructive. Like, provide a testcase that ICEs >> > with the FAILs replaced by gcc_unreachable (). Martin, may I suggest >> > to do this replacement and bootstrap/test? I think it would be nice >> > to have testsuite coverage for the FAILs, and maybe we have that >> > already. >> >> Hello. >> >> There's the suggested patch that survives bootstrap on ppc64le-linux-gnu >> and passes test-suite. > > OK, so can you please re-post the version of the VEC_COND_EXPR > patch that uses a regular IFN (without the static non-FAIL checking) > in a new thread? If there's no OK from rs6000 maintainers to remove > the FAILs then we'll go ahead with that version, unless Richard objects > here.
Well, it seems unfortunate to have to do that. I think Martin's powerpc patch is the correct one. But assuming that the powerpc maintainers still object, I guess the options are: - Find enough global reviewers who are prepared to approve that patch, to override the powerpc maintainers. - Avoid conflict by going with the regular IFN patch. To be clear, this will ICE in exactly the same cases that Martin's powerpc patch does (and current master does), so there's no real benefit to the powerpc port from doing this. It just makes the code more complicated and means that other ports don't benefit from the static checking. In the circumstances, I agree the second is probably the most practical way forward. I can't help but think this is a process failure though. I don't think using regular IFNs has any technical merits, and it doesn't give Segher what he wants either (i.e. code that copes with failing vconds). Thanks, Richard
