* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 6:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 7:30 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Target| |x86_64-linux-musl
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2021-04-12
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 6:17 ` [Bug target/100041] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 7:30 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 7:32 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #2 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Created attachment 50563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50563&action=edit
Preprocessed llvm/include/llvm/Demangle/ItaniumDemangle.h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 6:17 ` [Bug target/100041] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 7:30 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 7:32 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 7:34 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #3 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Created attachment 50564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50564&action=edit
Preprocessed llvm/lib/Support/ItaniumManglingCanonicalizer.cpp
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 7:32 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 7:34 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 7:39 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
... and what compiler options do you use please? Please paste output of
--verbose argument.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 7:34 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 7:39 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 7:40 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 7:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #5 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> ... and what compiler options do you use please? Please paste output of
> --verbose argument.
0 ~: gcc --verbose
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apathy-linux-musl/10.3.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apathy-linux-musl
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --libexecdir=/usr/libexec
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
--host=x86_64-apathy-linux-musl --build=x86_64-apathy-linux-musl
--target=x86_64-apathy-linux-musl --with-pkgversion=apathy
--enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-cxx-flags='-w
-pipe -O2 -mtune=native -march=native' --with-linker-hash-style=gnu
--with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-linker-build-id --enable-lto
--enable-plugin --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-tls
--without-included-gettext --without-isl --enable-bootstrap
--disable-default-pie --disable-default-ssp --disable-fixed-point
--disable-libmpx --disable-libmudflap --disable-libsanitizer
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-multilib --disable-nls --disable-rpath
--disable-static --disable-symvers --disable-werror
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 10.3.0 (apathy)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 7:39 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 7:40 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 8:52 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to mss from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > ... and what compiler options do you use please? Please paste output of
> > --verbose argument.
>
> 0 ~: gcc --verbose
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=gcc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apathy-linux-musl/10.3.0/lto-
> wrapper
> Target: x86_64-apathy-linux-musl
> Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --libexecdir=/usr/libexec
> --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
> --host=x86_64-apathy-linux-musl --build=x86_64-apathy-linux-musl
> --target=x86_64-apathy-linux-musl --with-pkgversion=apathy
> --enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
> --enable-cxx-flags='-w -pipe -O2 -mtune=native -march=native'
> --with-linker-hash-style=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
> --enable-linker-build-id --enable-lto --enable-plugin --enable-shared
> --enable-threads=posix --enable-tls --without-included-gettext --without-isl
> --enable-bootstrap --disable-default-pie --disable-default-ssp
> --disable-fixed-point --disable-libmpx --disable-libmudflap
> --disable-libsanitizer --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-multilib
> --disable-nls --disable-rpath --disable-static --disable-symvers
> --disable-werror
> Thread model: posix
> Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
> gcc version 10.3.0 (apathy)
I need to see the output of --verbose for the compilation invocation that ends
with the internal compiler error.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 7:40 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 8:52 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 8:54 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #7 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Created attachment 50565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50565&action=edit
Verbose invocation of the cmdline args to reach the ICE.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 8:52 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 8:54 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 8:55 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #8 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Apologies for the delay, had my account auto-locked.
While I was waiting for the unlocking of my account, I tried removing flags one
by one to see if that'd do a thing and turns out removing
``-m96bit-long-double'' does not prompt an ICE.
To my knowledge -march=native on my Core2 Duo T8100 is enabled by default, so I
have it added to compile a native-like LLVM for it from another computer.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 8:54 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 8:55 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 9:08 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #9 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
> To my knowledge -march=native on my Core2 Duo T8100 is enabled by default,
> so I have it added to compile a native-like LLVM for it from another
> computer.
I meant to say that -m96bit-long-double is enabled by -march=native on the
T8100.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 8:55 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 9:08 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-12 9:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #10 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Turns out I was horribly wrong, apologies:
>The x86-32 application binary interface specifies the size to be 96 bits, so -m96bit-long-double is the default in 32-bit mode. (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html)
0 ~: cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep model\ name | sort -u
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T8100 @ 2.10GHz
0 ~: gcc -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -Q --help=target | grep m96bit-long-double
-m96bit-long-double [disabled]
0 ~: gcc -march=native -mtune=native -Q --help=target | grep
m96bit-long-double
-m96bit-long-double [disabled]
0 ~: gcc -Q --help=target | grep m96bit-long-double
-m96bit-long-double [disabled]
0 ~: gcc -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -Q --help=target | grep m128bit-long-double
-m128bit-long-double [enabled]
0 ~: gcc -march=native -mtune=native -Q --help=target | grep
m128bit-long-double
-m128bit-long-double [enabled]
0 ~: gcc -Q --help=target | grep m128bit-long-double
-m128bit-long-double [enabled]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 9:08 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-12 9:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 9:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC| |hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail| |10.3.0
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed with just -O1 -m96bit-long-double on the GCC 10 branch and trunk.
Note -m96bit-long-double is an ABI changing option, I'm quite sure it shouldn't
be enabled by some random -march=...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 9:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 9:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 9:31 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
A possible solution might be to disallow the -m64 -m96bit-long-double
combination, the documentation suggests -m128bit-long-double was intended
as an "optimization" over the x86-32 ABI.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 9:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 9:31 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2021-04-12 11:08 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-12 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
See PR79514.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 9:31 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-12 11:08 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 11:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat itanium.ii
template <typename _Tp> _Tp forward();
void snprintf(...);
struct StringView {
StringView(char *);
};
struct Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node {
enum Kind {};
Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node(Kind);
};
struct FloatLiteralImpl : Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node {
StringView Contents;
Kind KindForClass;
FloatLiteralImpl(StringView Contents_)
: Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node(KindForClass), Contents(Contents_) {
union {
long double value;
};
snprintf(value);
}
};
template <typename> struct ManglingParser;
class CanonicalizerAllocator;
template <typename, typename Alloc> struct AbstractManglingParser {
char First;
Alloc ASTAllocator;
ManglingParser<CanonicalizerAllocator> getDerived();
template <class... Args> void make(Args...) {
ASTAllocator.template makeNode<int>(forward<Args>()...);
}
template <class> Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node *parseFloatingLiteral();
Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node *parse();
};
template <typename Alloc, typename Derived>
template <class>
Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node *
AbstractManglingParser<Alloc, Derived>::parseFloatingLiteral() {
StringView Data(&First);
make(Data);
return 0;
}
template <typename Derived, typename Alloc>
Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node *
AbstractManglingParser<Derived, Alloc>::parse() {
getDerived().template parseFloatingLiteral<double>();
return 0;
}
template <typename Alloc>
struct ManglingParser : AbstractManglingParser<int, Alloc> {};
struct CanonicalizerAllocator {
template <typename Args> void makeNodeSimple(Args);
struct MakeNodeImpl {
CanonicalizerAllocator &Self;
template <typename... Args> void make(Args...) {
Self.makeNodeSimple<FloatLiteralImpl>(forward<Args>()...);
}
};
template <typename, typename... Args> void makeNode(Args...) {
MakeNodeImpl{*this}.make(forward<Args>()...);
}
};
using CanonicalizingDemangler = ManglingParser<int>;
CanonicalizingDemangler parseMaybeMangledName_Demangler;
void parseMaybeMangledName() { parseMaybeMangledName_Demangler.parse(); }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 11:08 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 11:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2021-04-12 11:57 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-12 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> A possible solution might be to disallow the -m64 -m96bit-long-double
> combination, the documentation suggests -m128bit-long-double was intended
> as an "optimization" over the x86-32 ABI.
Yes, I think this is the way to go.
While it is possible to "fix" the ICE with:
--cut here--
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index 2820f6d6188..e2fa01756fd 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -3050,7 +3050,7 @@
(reg:P SP_REG)
(plus:P (reg:P SP_REG) (const_int -16))))
(match_operand:XF 0 "nonmemory_no_elim_operand" "f,r,*r,C"))]
- "TARGET_64BIT"
+ "TARGET_64BIT && !TARGET_128BIT_LONG_DOUBLE"
"#"
"&& 1"
[(set (reg:P SP_REG) (plus:P (reg:P SP_REG) (const_int -16)))
@@ -3077,7 +3077,7 @@
(define_insn "*pushxf"
[(set (match_operand:XF 0 "push_operand" "=<,<,<,<,<")
(match_operand:XF 1 "general_no_elim_operand" "f,r,*r,oF,oC"))]
- ""
+ "!TARGET_64BIT || TARGET_128BIT_LONG_DOUBLE"
{
/* This insn should be already split before reg-stack. */
return "#";
--cut here--
where the above patch prevents the push from memory, it is quite obvious from
ix86_split_long_move that TARGET_128BIT_LONG_DOUBLE is indeed intended as an
optimization for 32bit targets only.
So, let's kill -m96bit-long-double for TARGET_64BIT.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 11:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-12 11:57 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2021-04-12 11:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-12 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 50568
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50568&action=edit
Proposed patch
Attached patch disables -m96bit-long-double for 64-bit targets.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 11:57 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-12 11:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2021-04-12 12:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-12 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|x86_64-linux-musl |x86_64
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, |
|needs-reduction |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 11:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-12 12:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 12:11 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can we go with #c15 for GCC11 and do #c16 for GCC12?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 12:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 12:11 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2021-04-12 12:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-12 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Can we go with #c15 for GCC11 and do #c16 for GCC12?
I'd like to kill the option for GCC11, and the solution is safer than #c15.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 12:11 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-12 12:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12 12:22 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-12 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I'm worried that there isn't enough time to find out before GCC11 release if
some packages in the wild aren't using that option.
E.g. I wonder where it comes from in this PR. Clearly it doesn't come from
gcc, so does it come from LLVM makefiles or has the reporter just added it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 12:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-12 12:22 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2021-04-12 12:26 ` mss at tutanota dot de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-12 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|11.0 |12.0
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> I'm worried that there isn't enough time to find out before GCC11 release if
> some packages in the wild aren't using that option.
> E.g. I wonder where it comes from in this PR. Clearly it doesn't come from
> gcc, so does it come from LLVM makefiles or has the reporter just added it?
OK, let's wait with the patch after the branch, and leave things as they are
for now.
BTW: I don't think the fix for PR79514 is enough to handle any non-trivial
usage of -m96bit-long-double, and this PR reflects the fact.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 12:22 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-12 12:26 ` mss at tutanota dot de
2021-04-23 16:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-24 8:03 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mss at tutanota dot de @ 2021-04-12 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #21 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> I'm worried that there isn't enough time to find out before GCC11 release if
> some packages in the wild aren't using that option.
> E.g. I wonder where it comes from in this PR. Clearly it doesn't come from
> gcc, so does it come from LLVM makefiles or has the reporter just added it?
I was trying to build an LLVM for one of my machines from a much more powerful
machine and wanted to add the flags that `-march=native' enables for that
processor but I was unaware that `-m128bit-long-double' was enabled by default
already.
I accidentally added `-m96bit-long-double' myself instead of
`-m128bit-long-double', running g++ with both `-m64' and `-m96bit-long-double'
caused the ICE.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 12:26 ` mss at tutanota dot de
@ 2021-04-23 16:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-24 8:03 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-23 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak <uros@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:716bb02b40ecef5564abb5ba45a594323123a104
commit r12-94-g716bb02b40ecef5564abb5ba45a594323123a104
Author: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Apr 23 18:45:14 2021 +0200
i386: Reject -m96bit-long-double for 64bit targets [PR100041]
64bit targets default to 128bit long double, so -m96bit-long-double should
not be used. Together with -m128bit-long-double, this option was intended
to be an optimization for 32bit targets only.
Error out when -m96bit-long-double is used with 64bit targets.
2021-04-23 Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
gcc/
PR target/100041
* config/i386/i386-options.c (ix86_option_override_internal):
Error out when -m96bit-long-double is used with 64bit targets.
* config/i386/i386.md (*pushxf_rounded): Remove pattern.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/100041
* gcc.target/i386/pr79514.c (dg-error):
Expect error for 64bit targets.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug target/100041] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022
2021-04-12 3:39 [Bug c++/100041] New: ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4022 mss at tutanota dot de
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-23 16:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-24 8:03 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2021-04-24 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed for gcc-12, no plan to backport.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread