https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #27 from kaushikp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have verified the backported patch to GCC-7 and it fixes the issues
I had observed earlier.
Thanks again Peter for this!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #26 from Peter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #25 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Fri Mar 23 17:48:58 2018
New Revision: 258819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258819=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-03-20 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #24 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #23)
> This regtested fine on BE for me with no regressions. My LE
> bootstrap/regtest is still running.
My LE bootstrap and regtesting were clean too. Just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #23 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 43728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43728=edit
Backport of trunk patch to GCC 7
Kaushik, can you verify the attached backported patch fixes the ICE on GCC 7?
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
--- Comment #22 from Peter Bergner
hanks & Best Regards,
Kaushik M. Phatak
-Original Message-
From: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:02 PM
To: Kaushik Phatak <kaushik.pha...@kpit.com>
Subject: [Bug target/83789] __builtin_altivec_lvx fails for powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #20 from Peter Bergner ---
Kaushik, remind me, you're seeing the same ICE in GCC 7 as well, so we need a
backport of the patch committed to trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue Mar 20 17:25:09 2018
New Revision: 258688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258688=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/83789
* config/rs6000/altivec.md (altivec_lvx__2op):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43617|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
kaushikp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaushikp at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43611|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43419|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
Ok, I have a patch that eliminates the duplicate patterns and greatly
simplifies the code that calls these patterns. I'm testing it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #12 from Kaushikp ---
>> we're getting duplicate named patterns.
Yes, it does generate multiple patters for the concerned built-ins causing
toolchain build failure.
I think it's trying to force the same pattern for 32-bit which exist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
Ah, testing my patch, we're getting duplicate named patterns. I'll have to
think about this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43417|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 43417
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43417=edit
Proposed patch to merge altivec patterns.
Hi Kaushik,
Can you see if the following unetsted patch fixes your ICE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00031.html -- I think
> Kaushik
> is still looking at this?
Ah, ok. I do agree with your comment to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00031.html -- I think Kaushik
is still looking at this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #5 from Kaushikp ---
>> Kaushik: is this fixed with r256762?
No. The testcase still fails with internal compiler error: Segmentation fault.
This revision (r256762) dated 16th Jan 2018 still calls
'CODE_FOR_altivec_lvx_v4si_2op' insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Kaushik: is this fixed with r256762?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Does not reproduce with powerpc64-linux-gcc -m32 (not on trunk and
not on current 7).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Kaushikp from comment #0)
> Should we modify the testcase so it runs only for 64-bit targets,
> or should this builtin work for 32-bit targets as well?
It shouldn't ICE for 32-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #1 from Kaushikp ---
Just some additional info on this issue,
The powerpc-elf-gcc did not have any issues compiling this testcase with
identical options on gcc-7.2.0;
powerpc-linux-gcc generated segmentation fault;
27 matches
Mail list logo
