https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed ICE in GCC11, will delete relevant expanders and fold those builtins in
GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:530b1d688761db46b33d26864d3a0684cc82e0f9
commit r11-6926-g530b1d688761db46b33d26864d3a0684cc82e0f9
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
> For avx2_gt we actually use the expander in one spot, but don't use the
> builtins.
Just note, there're also
modified libcpp/lex.c
@@ -391,10 +391,10 @@ search_line_sse2 (const uchar *s, const uchar *end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If two insns with the same RTL match, then the first one wins.
But the vpcom instructions have different RTL, so I see no reason for the
!TARGET_XOP.
grepping for sse2_eq I see only:
i386-builtin.def:BDESC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the expander is there to perform ix86_fixup_binary_operands_no_copy
(there is a lot of other expanders that have the sole purpose of doing that).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Or rather keep the define_expand but remove the !TARGET_XOP from the
define_insn?
Will we be confused when we have two define_insns matching?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Eventually XOP has some "better" compares (vpcom).
Btw, why do we have a define_expand for "sse2_eq3"? Do we use this
as building block internally? Then we should remove the !TARGET_XOP from
that? That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Oh, becuase xop has it's own integer compare
(define_insn "xop_maskcmp3"
[(set (match_operand:VI_128 0 "register_operand" "=x")
(match_operator:VI_128 1 "ix86_comparison_int_operator"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu ---
hmm, why TARGET_SSE2 && !TARGET_XOP?
(define_insn "*sse2_eq3"
[(set (match_operand:VI124_128 0 "register_operand" "=x,x")
(eq:VI124_128
(match_operand:VI124_128 1 "vector_operand" "%0,x")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98833
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.2.0
Priority|P3
12 matches
Mail list logo
