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 B4EE53858407; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:52:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B4EE53858407
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675097542;
	bh=XCzwIE9un/9LDpaNdlH8lA2GUEF/bh2GXN4y5daTqEc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=J/QddN5daAwQBmdk2cxUbkhK3fJd7COsY1axtFdhZZQHLQyiGJjG/FY35R+WjGnYF
	 75s+KviOxx2iW60xo/tjoNREOtHS8aWVg6abQycMvGJMVf07und+gadDvRbAmgZdAT
	 3ctwswXcf0JgHpxBQsTzAeS1kzMSdnZ5qaY1x7Ts=
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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 16:52:22 +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: rsandifo 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: <bug-108583-4-o8DewfxQyn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108583-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108583-4@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=3D108583

--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or=
g> ---
(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.)=