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 3558E3858402; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:57:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3558E3858402
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103623] [12 Regression] error: unable to generate
 reloads (ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4132), or error:
 insn does not satisfy its constraints (ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached,
 at recog.c:2682)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:57:41 +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: accepts-invalid, ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103623-4-RyTkFBcIpD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103623-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103623-4@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: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:57:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103623

--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #28)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27)
> > OTOH, it makes no sense to test if we have hard float.  The pack and un=
pack
> > builtins should work (and work the same) whenever long double is
> > double-double.
>=20
> Agreed.  For soft-float, the value would be a a GPR pair versus a FPR pair
> (for -m64).  It's a little tricker for -m32 -msoft-float compiles, since a
> 128-bit long double would live in 4 32-bit GPRs, so more regs than it tak=
es
> to hold them in FPRs.  Not much of a complication, but just needs to be
> tested on 32-bit to ensure it works as expected.

It can be in memory, even; it doesn't matter.  But it is boring data
movement, and in many cases it doesn't generate any code even :-)=