public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108703] insn does not satisfy its constraints: movhi_insn at -O1
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 21:54:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108703-4-e9paL71sgd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-108703-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108703

Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Here is my analysis of the problem/

Before IRA we already have:

(insn 10 7 11 2 (set (reg:HI 33 %f1)
        (reg:HI 35 %f3)) "/home/vmakarov/testcase.c":8:3 114 {*movhi_insn}
     (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 13107 [0x3333])
        (nil)))

LRA considers the insn is correct and does not check constraints as it
is simple move and its cost is 2.  This is standard convention for ignoring
constraints since the very early versions of reload pass.  And as I remember,
it is described somewhere in GCC documentation.

I think we should avoid to generate such insn from the start because
ignoring the reload convention will result in many unexpected
consequences where LRA speed slowdown probably would be a minor negative
consequence.

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-31 21:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-07 19:25 [Bug target/108703] New: ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.cc:2692 (insn does not satisfy its constraints: movhi_insn) on sparc64 " zsojka at seznam dot cz
2023-05-12 10:10 ` [Bug target/108703] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-12 10:33 ` [Bug target/108703] insn does not satisfy its constraints: movhi_insn " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-18  8:50 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-31 21:54 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-108703-4-e9paL71sgd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).