[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-09-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-09-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Tue Sep 18 16:24:58 2018 New Revision: 264401 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264401=gcc=rev Log: Backport PR86882 fix to 8 PR rtl-optimization/86882 *

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-09-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Tue Sep 18 16:19:56 2018 New Revision: 264400 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264400=gcc=rev Log: Handle CLOBBER in reg_overlap_mentioned_p (PR86882) Combine will put CLOBBER

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-09-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-08-09 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5) > So what is wrong about that? CONST_INTs are sign-extended always, so > 0xff00 is just fine? As said in Comment #2, it is not wrong, just

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-08-08 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- So what is wrong about that? CONST_INTs are sign-extended always, so 0xff00 is just fine?

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-08-08 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3) > combine creates a clobber of const_int 0 to make sure a pattern will > not match. That is valid RTL, but further patterns constructed from > that are not

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-08-08 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- combine creates a clobber of const_int 0 to make sure a pattern will not match. That is valid RTL, but further patterns constructed from that are not (clobber on a rhs). The upper bits of a

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-08-08 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- Also suspicious combine transformation before the failure: Trying 10, 11 -> 13: 10: r94:SI=zero_extend(r92:QI) 11: {r95:SI=r94:SI^0x101;clobber flags:CC;} REG_DEAD r94:SI REG_UNUSED flags:CC

[Bug rtl-optimization/86882] [9 Regression] ICE in reg_overlap_mentioned_p, at rtlanal.c:1873

2018-08-08 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86882 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|