From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id B4408396E865; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:06:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B4408396E865
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/101849] MMA built-in dies with a verify_gimple failed
 error
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:06:27 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101849-4-Q0hholFGfa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101849-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101849-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:06:27 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101849

--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> Is there a benefit of one over the other?  ...other than the build2 code
> being simpler since we'd just pass in the type we want.

So the following seems to work which seems a little simpler than what I
submitted.  I'll test this along with a little beefier test case with multi=
ple
offsets, with some not constant.

      tree ptr_t =3D build_pointer_type (vector_pair_type_node);
      tree mem =3D build2 (MEM_REF, vector_pair_type_node,
                         build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, ptr_t, ptr, offset),
                         build_int_cst (ptr_t, 0));=