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 4A4623858D1E; Fri,  8 Sep 2023 06:58:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4A4623858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694156336;
	bh=Op05ONge7sr1TU141Y0K1J50tEgOTQmERIx7f+RcL6g=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=v7Zv8Ef7zU7yMh24JmpiVglx6C+wXQbfkir0/O4JQ0CK4ubHdXBNq8m6H/poloQGS
	 xKONTdJ2JRV6WHK2EmwIyMd+Mq9+yo5wSXqBF8BtA1N2WUM2gGquZKjgAYIgN1NHaU
	 F5IL+DnXgf3lK4dWmq8JS5lXotMltGsJBsorQ9cw=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/111334] [14 regression] ICE is reported during the
 combine pass optimization
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 06:58:56 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111334-4-qmTqJsAGtr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111334-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111334-4@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=3D111334

--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> >=20
> > >  (define_insn "<optab>di3_fake"
> > >    [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=3Dr,&r,&r")
> > > -	(sign_extend:DI
> > > -	  (any_div:SI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "r,r,0")
> > > -		      (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "r,r,r"))))]
> > > -  ""
> > > +	(if_then_else
> > > +	  (and (eq (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "r,r,0")
> > > +		   (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (match_dup 1) 0)))
> > > +	       (eq (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "r,r,r")
> > > +		   (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (match_dup 2) 0))))
> > > +	  (sign_extend:DI
> > > +	    (any_div:SI (subreg:SI (match_dup 1) 0)
> > > +			(subreg:SI (match_dup 2) 0)))
> > > +	  (unspec:DI [(const_int 0)] UNSPEC_BAD_DIVW)))]
> >=20
> > With this the compiler will still believe all bad {div,mod}.w{,u}
>=20
> I think this is already defined as UNSPEC. Isn=E2=80=99t the simpler the =
logic, the
> better?

Yes, I think we should just use 4 different UNSPEC_ values and the simple
version.  But I've not find a way to use 4 different UNSPEC_ values in the =
RTL
template except duplicating everything 4 times...=