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 EB7493858D28; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:49:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EB7493858D28
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103686] ICE in rs6000_expand_new_builtin at
 rs6000-call.c:15946
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:49:13 +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: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103686-4-DET7HQL8am@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103686-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103686-4@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, 14 Dec 2021 15:49:14 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103686

--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #1)
> I think that the MMA implementation is incompatible with -mno-fold-gimple=
.=20
> We'll need to prevent that flag combination, I think.

Does -mno-fold-gimple really even make sense as an option?  I agree that the
MMA builtins require gimple folding of builtins.  One other option is to ju=
st
ignore rs6000_fold_gimple (true or false) if the builtin attribute has
RS6000_BTC_GIMPLE set.=