On 6/18/20 10:00 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:44:58AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
This breaks quite some powerpc.exp tests. Right now VEC_COND_EXPR expects
first
argument to be a SSA_NAME (or constant) and so the patch fixes that.
What does this mean? All context is missing here.
Also, is expecting that correct or not? Was that a change? Please
explain.
Using the patch, I survive powerpc.exp test-suite.
So this patch does *not* break quite some tests, it fixes them instead?
Please fix your commit message (and the Subject: even).
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index 817a14c9c0d..f613d372a13 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -10716,14 +10716,16 @@ rs6000_builtin_valid_without_lhs (enum
rs6000_builtins fn_code)
CODE indicates which comparison is to be made. (EQ, GT, ...).
TYPE indicates the type of the result. */
static tree
-fold_build_vec_cmp (tree_code code, tree type,
- tree arg0, tree arg1)
+fold_build_vec_cmp (tree_code code, tree type, tree arg0, tree arg1,
+ gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
The comment needs changing, explaining what the new arg is.
Segher
All right, let's do it better.
Martin
>From 9ba94cec649ef84399531f43d5c7171328a3f704 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:25:32 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] rs6000: fix creation of VEC_COND_EXPR
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (fold_build_vec_cmp):
Since 502d63b6d6141597bb18fd23c87736a1b384cf8f, first argument
of a VEC_COND_EXPR cannot be tcc_comparison and so that
a SSA_NAME needs to be created before we use it for the first
argument of the VEC_COND_EXPR.
(fold_compare_helper): Pass gsi to fold_build_vec_cmp.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c | 15 +++++++++------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
index 817a14c9c0d..5bc6952214c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c
@@ -10714,16 +10714,19 @@ rs6000_builtin_valid_without_lhs (enum rs6000_builtins fn_code)
operation. This sets up true/false vectors, and uses the
VEC_COND_EXPR operation.
CODE indicates which comparison is to be made. (EQ, GT, ...).
- TYPE indicates the type of the result. */
+ TYPE indicates the type of the result.
+ GSI points to a GIMPLE statement that we are currently folding. */
static tree
-fold_build_vec_cmp (tree_code code, tree type,
- tree arg0, tree arg1)
+fold_build_vec_cmp (tree_code code, tree type, tree arg0, tree arg1,
+ gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
{
tree cmp_type = truth_type_for (type);
tree zero_vec = build_zero_cst (type);
tree minus_one_vec = build_minus_one_cst (type);
- tree cmp = fold_build2 (code, cmp_type, arg0, arg1);
- return fold_build3 (VEC_COND_EXPR, type, cmp, minus_one_vec, zero_vec);
+ tree temp = create_tmp_reg_or_ssa_name (cmp_type);
+ gimple *g = gimple_build_assign (temp, code, arg0, arg1);
+ gsi_insert_before (gsi, g, GSI_SAME_STMT);
+ return fold_build3 (VEC_COND_EXPR, type, temp, minus_one_vec, zero_vec);
}
/* Helper function to handle the in-between steps for the
@@ -10734,7 +10737,7 @@ fold_compare_helper (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, tree_code code, gimple *stmt)
tree arg0 = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
tree arg1 = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 1);
tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (stmt);
- tree cmp = fold_build_vec_cmp (code, TREE_TYPE (lhs), arg0, arg1);
+ tree cmp = fold_build_vec_cmp (code, TREE_TYPE (lhs), arg0, arg1, gsi);
gimple *g = gimple_build_assign (lhs, cmp);
gimple_set_location (g, gimple_location (stmt));
gsi_replace (gsi, g, true);
--
2.27.0
