subject:"\[Bug target\/69305\] \[5\/6 Regression\] wrong code with \-O and int128 @ aarch64"

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-28 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson --- Author: rth Date: Thu Jan 28 17:48:22 2016 New Revision: 232936 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232936&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/69305 * config/aarch64/aarch64-modes.def (CC_Cmode): New

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-24 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01829.html

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-19 Thread nickc at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassign

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > The patterns are just weird. All that comes from the addti3 expander in aarch64.md If I delete it the testcase doesn't abort. I'll have a closer loo

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- The patterns are just weird. (insn 10 7 11 2 (parallel [ (set (reg:CC_NZ 66 cc) (compare:CC_NZ (plus:DI (reg:DI 79) (reg:DI 85 [ x ])) (

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #5) > Confirmed as well. > If combine changed the plus-compare into a minus-compare, shouldn't it also > go into the condition code usage and update that too th

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Confirmed as well. If combine changed the plus-compare into a minus-compare, shouldn't it also go into the condition code usage and update that too though?

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/69305] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128 @ aarch64

2016-01-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looks like aarch64 backend bug to me. unsigned __int128 f1 (unsigned __int128 x, unsigned __int128 y) { return x + y; } unsigned __int128 f2 (unsigned __int128 x, unsigned __int128 y) { return x - y; } unsign