[Bug target/101363] New: many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[Bug target/101363] New: many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[clyon at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

            Bug ID: 101363
           Summary: many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64
           Product: gcc
           Version: 9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

I've noticed lots of regressions likely after r12-2089. For instance:

FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/advsimd-intrinsics/bfdot-3.c   -O0  (test for excess
errors)
Excess errors:
during RTL pass: expand
in pp_format, at pretty-print.c:1478
0x1bc39f8 pp_format(pretty_printer*, text_info*)
        /gcc/pretty-print.c:1478
0x1ba6245 diagnostic_report_diagnostic(diagnostic_context*, diagnostic_info*)
        /gcc/diagnostic.c:1331
0x1ba6727 diagnostic_impl
        /gcc/diagnostic.c:1493
0x1ba6fc6 error(char const*, ...)
        /gcc/diagnostic.c:1789
0x12d4f5c aarch64_simd_expand_args
        /gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1588
0x12d557c aarch64_simd_expand_builtin(int, tree_node*, rtx_def*)
        /gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1739
0x12d5fac aarch64_general_expand_builtin(unsigned int, tree_node*, rtx_def*,
int)
        /gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:2179
0x882c54 expand_builtin(tree_node*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, machine_mode, int)
        /gcc/builtins.c:9807
0xa0a09b expand_expr_real_1(tree_node*, rtx_def*, machine_mode,
expand_modifier, rtx_def**, bool)
        /gcc/expr.c:11440
0xa185c9 store_expr(tree_node*, rtx_def*, int, bool, bool)
        /gcc/expr.c:5997
0xa1a7d5 expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool)
        /gcc/expr.c:5729
0x8bbe3e expand_call_stmt
        /gcc/cfgexpand.c:2844
0x8bbe3e expand_gimple_stmt_1
        /gcc/cfgexpand.c:3877
0x8bbe3e expand_gimple_stmt
        /gcc/cfgexpand.c:4041
0x8bd204 expand_gimple_basic_block
        /gcc/cfgexpand.c:6083
0x8bf831 execute
        /gcc/cfgexpand.c:6809

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-07-07
                 CC|                            |tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It also broke the bootstrap.

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't see the ICE with my cross-compiler and the stack trace doesn't
correspond to the latest sources (there's no call to error() at
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1588; a call to error_at() that replaced
the error() in r12-2088 is on line 1601) so it's hard for me to say what's
going on.

What is the bootstrap problem?

Christophe, I thought you had successfully bootstrapped and tested the patch on
aarch64?

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Bootstrap turns on -Werror so the warning generated in
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c at aarch64_simd_lane_bounds for the use of `%K`
becomes fatal.

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[clyon at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> I don't see the ICE with my cross-compiler and the stack trace doesn't
> correspond to the latest sources (there's no call to error() at
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1588; a call to error_at() that
> replaced the error() in r12-2088 is on line 1601) so it's hard for me to say
> what's going on.
> 
> What is the bootstrap problem?
> 
> Christophe, I thought you had successfully bootstrapped and tested the patch
> on aarch64?

I didn't bootstrap, I only run cross-builds, sorry.

And yes I did test the patches you provided on aarch64:
https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/r12-1929-gf6bc9d9bddad7f9e3aad939bb6750770ac67f003-martin.patch/report-build-info.html

There were a few errors on aarch64/arm (which you already knew about), the full
patch I tested is:
https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/r12-1929-gf6bc9d9bddad7f9e3aad939bb6750770ac67f003-martin.patch/commit.txt.
Did I mess something up? IIRC I tested patches 1+2+3, and it seems the problem
comes from patch 4?

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No, you didn't.  I missed the one %K in aarch64.c.  Let me commit the fix below
to fix the bootstrap error.  I'm still not sure what the deal is with the tests
though.

diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index 2753c852abd..f5b25a7f704 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
@@ -20128,7 +20128,8 @@ aarch64_simd_lane_bounds (rtx operand, HOST_WIDE_INT
low, HOST_WIDE_INT high,
   if (lane < low || lane >= high)
   {
     if (exp)
-      error ("%Klane %wd out of range %wd - %wd", exp, lane, low, high - 1);
+      error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (exp), "lane %wd out of range %wd - %wd",
+               lane, low, high - 1);
     else
       error ("lane %wd out of range %wd - %wd", lane, low, high - 1);
   }

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
yeah, the ICEs don't make sense to me either, let me see if I can debug one of
them.

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor <msebor@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06357071d0557c4f0e9b0a6dfc4d37f5680e34cc

commit r12-2100-g06357071d0557c4f0e9b0a6dfc4d37f5680e34cc
Author: Martin Sebor <msebor@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 7 08:49:13 2021 -0600

    aarch64: Remove a vestigial %K [PR101363]

    gcc/ChangeLog:
            PR target/101363
            * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_simd_lane_bounds): Remove
            a stray %K from error_at() missed in r12-2088.

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[clyon at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Here are the options I see in gcc.log:
-O0  -march=armv8.2-a+bf16

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks like r12-2100 fixes the ICE as well.  I don't see any other %K or %G in
these calls anywhere so let me resolve this as fixed.