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 E324D385C6D7; Thu,  6 Jul 2023 13:46:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E324D385C6D7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1688651184;
	bh=HqlSejKCxoxT+9Iks5CBNchmr2LTS2wrMoe+2dBPKUM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UW8SuVr3pNrQIGr1EcNdWVvKTbEv6zzvBnCuFAplS6fxyfMvyKBe01UZja86D+Uxc
	 e6q8P+HUjVIQ0Cjthqhq1Vwk70hEy93h+1vczxSNXT6QBTY97ZDQ4RDKe/B+za9AIq
	 XIOtxAEJ3jrRb0i5Swpe/FmaZ+hYbw5GAeycYekE=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/106895] powerpc64 unable to specify even/odd register
 pairs in extended inline asm
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 13:46:23 +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: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: inline-asm
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-106895-4-zWdVKKVA2Z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106895-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106895-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106895

--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #9)
> I don't know why constraint is wrong and mode is right

Simple: you would need O(2**T*N) constraints for our existing N register
constraints, together with T features like this.  But only O(2**T) modes at
most.

> or why TI doesn't work but PTI apparently would,

Because this is exactly what PTImode is *for*!

> but I'll take anything that works. Could we
> get PTI implemented? Does it need a new issue opened?

It was implemented in 2013.  The restriction to only even pairs was a bugfi=
x,
also from 2013.

If you have code like

  typedef __int128 __attribute__((mode(PTI))) even;

you get an error like

  error: no data type for mode 'PTI'

This needs fixing.  You can keep it in this PR?=