From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 924B13889E27; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 17:04:31 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 924B13889E27 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675098271; bh=Bo+xnOp6LxqNza2JJEhXerCaRlVliryCN7BzhilmwoU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=U03TdjDFDtzOhAtbwtm+1yMLqlvSSW1bJ7B2KuNizPe25azs6KDrtLpodbG0ZF6IJ y7Hb681vBuI7bmB1TmMICk0dmL58uxVV6f2IFTS21U5ezBUa1tbtgDd6pyC0rvYF7a x9kWPJ50LumKZDrHM+0p5O7j7pb+t1ZpBa9wuD8E= From: "tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/108583] [13 Regression] wrong code with vector division by uint16 at -O2 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 17:04:30 +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: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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=3D108583 --- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6) > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3) > > The vectorizer has this context but since we didn't want a new IFN the > > context should instead be derivable in > > targetm.vectorize.can_special_div_by_const hook. > I probably got lost in the threading, but could you point to where > the idea of using an ifn was rejected? I know there was pushback > against hard-coding a specific constant, but that doesn't prevent > the use of ifns in itself. (E.g. the gather/scatter IFNs have > constant arguments that are checked against what the target allows.) https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/patch-15779-tamar@arm.co= m/#124788 is where the original patch used an IFN. https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/patch-15779-tamar@arm.co= m/#124863 where Richi wouldn't ACK a new optab as it didn't have a physical instructi= on backing it on any ISA, and in fairness, no one else did either effectively stranding the change. https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/patch-15779-tamar@arm.co= m/#125144 where I pinged and got no response to the ping. After which I went on IRC a= nd asked Richi how he'd like me to proceed. In reply to this I was instructed= he would like to proceed the same way vector permutes are currently handled wi= th `can_perm` etc. and that's where the patch thread picks off back on the ML= .=