From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 99AB73858C27; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 06:25:09 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 99AB73858C27 From: "linkw at gcc dot 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: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 06:25:09 +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-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 06:25:09 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103623 --- Comment #20 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #19) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #17) > > (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #16) > > > Could there be any ld, or as, or glibc features involved that gcc's > > > configure detects at build time? > >=20 > > btw, could you try the above configuration > > which I used on x86_64 to confirm the configuration actually fails to > > reproduce? Note that I don't have one actual directory for the sysroot > > locally. > >=20 > > If you can confirm the above configuration also fails to reproduce on y= our > > side, maybe you can isolate which configuration option matters by adding > > those omitted back one by one on your side. >=20 > No, w/ your configuration gcc also ICEs for me on that testcase. >=20 > Is there any useful data that I could extract for you using gdb? Thanks for the information! I'll go with your provided binutils information= and try again. How about the information on glibc as well? As to gdb, I would expect that: 1=EF=BC=89 (TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 && TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && !TARGET_IEEEQUAD) this return false on your side, which is the flag used for previous bif support. Could you check all the values? 2) FLOAT128_2REG_P (TFmode) this return true on your side, and as the below defintion, #define FLOAT128_2REG_P(MODE) \ (FLOAT128_IBM_P (MODE) \ || ((MODE) =3D=3D TDmode) = \ || (!TARGET_FLOAT128_TYPE && FLOAT128_IEEE_P (MODE))) #define FLOAT128_IBM_P(MODE) \ ((!TARGET_IEEEQUAD && TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 \ && ((MODE) =3D=3D TFmode || (MODE) =3D=3D TCmode)) = \ || (TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && ((MODE) =3D=3D IFmode || (MODE) =3D=3D ICmode))) Could you check which condition arm makes FLOAT128_2REG_P true on your side= ?=