public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/105624] [13 Regression] ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at final.cc:2861 (error: could not split insn)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 12:00:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105624-4-aH1qbk7wrA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105624-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105624

rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
FWIW, I think the problem is specific to operands that are
commutative with a non-constant operand.  For example,
suppose the pre-RA instruction had a pseudo register R matching
a register_operand and a constant C matching a const_int_operand.
If R does not get allocated, and so gets replaced by a stack slot M,
the % would allow the RA to try mapping C to the register_operand
and M to the const_int_operand.  Without a constraint on the latter,
the M mapping would seem to be valid, and reloading C into a register
might seem less costly than reloading M into a register.

The intent of the patch seemed good otherwise (and a nice clean-up).
I don't think the whole thing needed to be reverted.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-30 12:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-17  2:20 [Bug target/105624] New: " asolokha at gmx dot com
2022-05-17  6:59 ` [Bug target/105624] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-17 10:22 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2022-05-17 11:29 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2022-05-17 15:38 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-17 15:41 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2022-05-30 12:00 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-05-30 12:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2022-05-30 12:31 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-30 12:49 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2022-05-30 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-105624-4-aH1qbk7wrA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).