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 500D93857C74; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:38:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 500D93857C74
From: "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103676] [10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error:
 in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2671
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:38:24 +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: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, inline-asm, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103676-4-d8XojIt83s@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103676-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103676-4@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: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:38:24 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103676

--- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22)
> If we consider such an inline asm invalid, we could error on it, ICE is n=
ot
> the right thing.  But what exactly should we error on?  Alternative

I think it is better to fix it in LRA than describing the semantics.  I am
starting to work on it and will look how the fix is going.  If it is too
complicated, we could try another solution (with describing the current
semantics).

In any case, I think it is not worth to fix the same existing problem in the
old reload pass.

> containing multiple register classes for multi-word operands is still
> something used quite commonly in real-world, the problem is when the RA
> assigns it a reg spanning across those.  Or do most backends restrict
> multi-word regs to start at a reg number divisible by the number of words
> they need?=