From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B85203858D1E; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 07:00:28 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B85203858D1E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1672729228; bh=BvaDThqhb0yMBj04vmwlrPehjC2WFx7ryJLk+0Ivi70=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ZSThwtIvdlNWTjfDAmkQoJY3nAwJlkF3e48dr276HGxgWae6QrIMS74F/K+mVOit+ YSag62MJvFh74BObw90ae4vwsf4yqxbyCSBRtEQdW7g3nECOqvucU7VI6CQU7yzTaL N9eHhGypkIxRsMcvzvLWW11HrAhvbCJxXGVXXCvY= From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/108240] ICE in emit_library_call_value_1 at gcc/calls.cc:4181 since r13-4894-gacc727cf02a144 Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 07:00:28 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_gcctarget cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108240 Kewen Lin changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target|poiwerpc |powerpc CC| |bergner at gcc dot gnu.org, | |segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin --- 2) before the culprit commit r13-4894, if there is an explicit -m64, it does set powerpc64 (as it's set explicitly), while if there is no explicit -m64,= it does nothing. The implicit 64 bit setting would always implicitly enable powerpc64 initially, so it's fine. As this case shows, it's possible that t= he used cpu would unset powerpc64 later if it's not default. With the culprit commit r13-4894, we always implicitly enable powerpc64 for both explicit and implicit 64 bit, it's the same as before for the explicit= 64 bit case, but for the implicit 64 bit case, there is no chance for the used= cpu to unset powerpc64 (like this case). To keep it consistent with the previou= s, the fix can be to only enable powerpc64 implicitly for explicit 64 bit, whi= le let it be for implicit 64 bit.=