On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 6:20 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For tcpsock_test.go in libgo tests,
>
> commit aba3b9d3a48a0703fd565f7c5f0caf604f59970b
> Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri May 9 07:17:07 2025 +0800
>
> x86: Extend the remove_redundant_vector pass
>
> added an instruction:
>
> (insn 501 101 102 21 (set (reg:V2DI 234)
> (vec_duplicate:V2DI (reg:DI 111 [ _46 ]))) "tcpsock_test.go":691:12
> disc
> rim 1 -1
> (nil))
>
> after
>
> (insn 101 100 501 21 (set (reg:DI 111 [ _46 ])
> (mem:DI (reg/f:DI 110 [ _45 ]) [5 *_45+0 S8 A64]))
> "tcpsock_test.go":691
> :12 discrim 1 99 {*movdi_internal}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 110 [ _45 ])
> (expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (nil))))
>
> which resulted in
>
> (insn 101 100 501 21 (set (reg:DI 111 [ _46 ])
> (mem:DI (reg/f:DI 110 [ _45 ]) [5 *_45+0 S8 A64]))
> "tcpsock_test.go":691
> :12 discrim 1 99 {*movdi_internal}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 110 [ _45 ])
> (expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (nil))))
> (insn 501 101 102 21 (set (reg:V2DI 234)
> (vec_duplicate:V2DI (reg:DI 111 [ _46 ]))) "tcpsock_test.go":691:12
> disc
> rim 1 -1
> (nil))
>
> and caused:
>
> tcpsock_test.go: In function 'net.TestTCPBig..func2':
> tcpsock_test.go:684:28: error: in basic block 21:
> 684 | go func() {
> | ^
> tcpsock_test.go:684:28: error: flow control insn inside a basic block
> (insn 101 100 501 21 (set (reg:DI 111 [ _46 ])
> (mem:DI (reg/f:DI 110 [ _45 ]) [5 *_45+0 S8 A64]))
> "tcpsock_test.go":691
> :12 discrim 1 99 {*movdi_internal}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 110 [ _45 ])
> (expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (nil))))
> during RTL pass: rrvl
> tcpsock_test.go:684:28: internal compiler error: in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at
> cfgr
> tl.cc:2834
>
> Copy the REG_EH_REGION note to the newly added instruction and split the
> block after the previous instruction.
>
> PR target/120816
> * config/i386/i386-features.cc (remove_redundant_vector_load):
> Handle REG_EH_REGION note in DEF_INSN.
>
> OK for master
+ if (note)
+ {
+ control_flow_insns.safe_push (load->def_insn);
+ add_reg_note (insn, REG_EH_REGION,
+ XEXP (note, 0));
+ }
I think we don't need to add_reg_not to vec_duplicate insn.
Other LGTM.
I'm wondering if emit_insn_after can be extended to handle this
situation. It looks like a general issue to me, at least we met it
several times.
>
> --
> H.J.
--
BR,
Hongtao
