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 D10093857C75; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 01:56:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D10093857C75
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701136597;
	bh=sUplO5QP/QU/wPbTHr2ZdD2Ftk2Qgm3/6nphWXDWg/E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=mRs0FvwY/EYGysTL60M9So+swAOWHx2zbM0f1XBXD79mVXdNffLB8Pusk7qrT/hAE
	 gdWAlGaSrQb+Ju7KfJbiXMMxtk8rnsVRsfOznhm7wyY+k1AyGuHoolJLiHtT4hpBjZ
	 EdvAN1bENCN5QohCZb6GgrBtMgt/SN/NflD6yN0g=
From: "guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/112707] [14 regression] gcc 14 outputs invalid assembly
 on ppc: Error: unrecognized opcode: `fctid'
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 01:56:29 +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: assemble-failure
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112707-4-y0z57WnZzc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112707-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112707-4@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=3D112707

--- Comment #9 from HaoChen Gui <guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Yeah, it tested for ISA 2.04 before.  That was an attempt at including 476
> probably?
>=20
> We really should have a TARGET_FCTID, on for TARGET_POWERPC64 or for cpu =
476
> (so
> NOT user-selectable separately, of course!); not try to use pre-existing
> flags for this, which might work but will forever stay confusing.
>=20
> So either a separate OPTION_FCTID for in rs6000-cpus.def, or TARGET_FCTID=
.=20
> Either
> works for me.
>=20
> (Background: in ISA 1.xx it was for 64-bit implementations only.  But it
> does not
> need 64-bit registers or a 64-bit integer pipeline at all, it is an FP
> instruction
> that works on FP registers, which always are 64-bit.  The instruction was
> implemented
> on the 476).

Thanks for your explanation.

I found "fctid" is supported on PPC64 and PPC476 from assembler source code.
{=E2=80=9Cfctid=E2=80=9D,       XRC(63,814,0),  XRA_MASK,    PPC64,     PPC=
VLE,         {FRT,
FRB}},
{=E2=80=9Cfctid=E2=80=9D,       XRC(63,814,0),  XRA_MASK,    PPC476,    PPC=
VLE,         {FRT,
FRB}},

But powerpc7450 only enables PPC. That's why assembler complains.
  { "7450",    PPC_OPCODE_PPC | PPC_OPCODE_7450 | PPC_OPCODE_ALTIVEC, 0 },

My question is: can "fctid" be executed on powerpc7450 such a 32bit process=
or?
If it's supported, should the assembler be changed also (replace the PPC64 =
with
PPC for fctid)?=