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 A513D3858429; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 11:21:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A513D3858429
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/106069] [12/13 Regression] wrong code with -O
 -fno-tree-forwprop -maltivec on ppc64le
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 11:21:45 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: 12.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106069-4-hnQjrTyswV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106069-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106069-4@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, 29 Jul 2022 11:21:45 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106069

--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> Seeing
>=20
> Trying 21 -> 24:
>    21: r150:V4SI=3Dvec_select(vec_concat(r146:V4SI,r141:V4SI),parallel)
>       REG_DEAD r146:V4SI
>       REG_DEAD r141:V4SI
>    24: {r151:SI=3Dvec_select(r150:V4SI,parallel);clobber scratch;}
> ...
> Successfully matched this instruction:
> (set (reg:SI 151)
>     (vec_select:SI (reg:V4SI 141)
>         (parallel [
>                 (const_int 3 [0x3])
>             ])))
>=20
> shouldn't that be (vec_select:SI (reg:V4SI 146) ...)?  Or does
> (vec_concat:V8SI (xx:V4SI xx:V4SI)) magically swap the two V4SI vectors?

Ah, no, the combination looks correct to me.  After all the select in 21
interleaves the two inputs.=