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 C90603858C5E; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 10:28:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C90603858C5E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1679394519;
	bh=ld3ZjLblXjrQgeW8DycJgWg92Rlqfgz9t9Q6Jjk1Sx8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BkdajQQw75tD+OqfyYKRXJbxAZ38uZaRIqlzSqhtG4TxIteNXU/ktBrq+6f6EQDbT
	 +Vhx3ZVggL+TF0xprLj7o2LvvfyrsBmlGnacAaoNDQ6gBguRwPP1BccN/bLFs+LhKq
	 LF/LhDAVeGnrj2Htc70tB7tARHOKs6NyULy6cZ0w=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109176] [13 Regression] internal compiler
 error: in to_constant, at poly-int.h:504
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 10:28:39 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109176-4-jEckzMpxPF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109176-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109176-4@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=3D109176

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-generic.cc
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-generic.cc
> @@ -1040,6 +1040,10 @@ expand_vector_condition (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
> bitmap dce_ssa_names)
>    tree_code code =3D TREE_CODE (a);
>    gassign *assign =3D NULL;
>=20=20
> +  if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (a))
> +      && expand_vec_cond_expr_p (type, TREE_TYPE (a), ERROR_MARK))
> +    return true;
> +
>    if (code =3D=3D SSA_NAME)
>      {
>        assign =3D dyn_cast<gassign *> (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (a));

Ok, the above LGTM.

> @@ -1053,14 +1057,14 @@ expand_vector_condition (gimple_stmt_iterator *gs=
i,
> bitmap dce_ssa_names)
>           comp_inner_type =3D TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (a1));
>           comp_width =3D vector_element_bits_tree (TREE_TYPE (a1));
>         }
> -    }
>=20=20
> -  if (expand_vec_cond_expr_p (type, TREE_TYPE (a1), code)
> -      || (integer_all_onesp (b) && integer_zerop (c)
> -         && expand_vec_cmp_expr_p (type, TREE_TYPE (a1), code)))
> -    {
> -      gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (a) =3D=3D SSA_NAME || TREE_CODE (a) =3D=3D =
VECTOR_CST);
> -      return true;
> +      if (expand_vec_cond_expr_p (type, TREE_TYPE (a1), code)
> +         || (integer_all_onesp (b) && integer_zerop (c)
> +             && expand_vec_cmp_expr_p (type, TREE_TYPE (a1), code)))
> +       {
> +         gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (a) =3D=3D SSA_NAME || TREE_CODE (a) =3D=
=3D
> VECTOR_CST);
> +         return true;
> +       }
>      }
>=20=20
>    /* Handle vector boolean types with bitmasks.  If there is a comparison

Is the second hunk because the verifier now requires that first argument of
VEC_COND_EXPR is always is_gimple_val and so it will be never tcc_compariso=
n?
I don't understand the assert after the change though, this is in code guar=
ded
with
code =3D=3D SSA_NAME, so TREE_CODE (a) =3D=3D SSA_NAME is always true.
If TREE_CODE (a) =3D=3D VECTOR_CST, then it could return true without lower=
ing only
in the
first hunk.

Are you going to test the patch (with the assert removed?)?

Not really sure about the testcase, perhaps the #c6 one in
gcc.target/aarch64/sve/pr109176.c with
/* PR tree-optimization/109176 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -march=3Darmv8.2-a+sve" } */

at the start added?  Or #pragma GCC aarch64 "arm_sve.h" line replaced with
#include <arm_sve.h> as well?=