[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511 Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #8 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com --- ARM OABI is no longer a supported target.
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com 2011-06-16
20:17:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I don't see this with an arm-linux-gnu toolchain for r163798.
Were you using a 64 bit host?
8486 if (immtype == 17)
8487 {
8488 /* FIXME: Broken on 32-bit H_W_I hosts. */
8489 gcc_assert (sizeof (HOST_WIDE_INT) == 8);
8490
8491 for (i = 0; i 8; i++)
I can still reproduce this with trunk, and there's a FIXME with a note about
this bug. Can this PR be moved out of WAITING, or is there some other
information I need to provide?
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-06-16 21:07:00 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, rmansfield at qnx dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com 2011-06-16
20:17:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I don't see this with an arm-linux-gnu toolchain for r163798.
Were you using a 64 bit host?
8486 if (immtype == 17)
8487 {
8488 /* FIXME: Broken on 32-bit H_W_I hosts. */
8489 gcc_assert (sizeof (HOST_WIDE_INT) == 8);
EABI targets force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, so the vast majority of users of
the ARM port won't hit this assert. If you really care about old-ABI
targets (and deprecation of arm-linux-gnu and arm-elf is long overdue),
maybe ARM should just force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally.
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511 --- Comment #6 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com 2011-06-16 23:00:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) EABI targets force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, so the vast majority of users of the ARM port won't hit this assert. If you really care about old-ABI targets (and deprecation of arm-linux-gnu and arm-elf is long overdue), maybe ARM should just force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally. Thanks for replying, JSM. Looking at config.gcc, there still seems to be a quite a number of targets that still use the apcs-gnu ABI. Are you suggesting all of the non-EABI targets be deprecated, or just the arm-linux-gnu/arm-elf configurations? Is there any downside or reason why not to add need_64bit_hwint=yes for all arm targets?
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511 --- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-06-16 23:15:47 UTC --- On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, rmansfield at qnx dot com wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511 --- Comment #6 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com 2011-06-16 23:00:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) EABI targets force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, so the vast majority of users of the ARM port won't hit this assert. If you really care about old-ABI targets (and deprecation of arm-linux-gnu and arm-elf is long overdue), maybe ARM should just force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally. Thanks for replying, JSM. Looking at config.gcc, there still seems to be a quite a number of targets that still use the apcs-gnu ABI. Are you suggesting all of the non-EABI targets be deprecated, or just the arm-linux-gnu/arm-elf configurations? Is there any downside or reason why not to add need_64bit_hwint=yes for all arm targets? The suggested deprecation is of arm-linux-gnu, obsoleted by arm-linux-gnueabi, arm-elf, obsoleted by arm-eabi, and probably arm-uclinux, obsoleted by arm-uclinuxeabi. It's been suggested that 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT compilers are slower on 32-bit hosts than those with 32-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, but I haven't seen any figures, and think in practice it would be better to use 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally for *all* hosts and targets and so eliminate one source of host-dependency bugs.
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 10:43 --- I don't see this with an arm-linux-gnu toolchain for r163798. -- ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
--- Comment #3 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2010-09-03 13:02 --- I can still reproduce it with r163811. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
[Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
--- Comment #1 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2010-09-03 01:13 --- Created an attachment (id=21680) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21680action=view) preprocessed source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
