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 E1C403858CDB; Tue,  9 Jan 2024 05:08:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E1C403858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704776925;
	bh=nbxRGbsNEHawv+xHuOP+RgFX+w/y3kanIvA6JFpch7U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Kzfm+oF2GGdXGYIEz6poKERvYHB0RqOkfInPk28UA/D1m85U7+JOT/HebjDDATDsS
	 Asjs0jGcIHhShy62KHuWqqo+skuEI2sJ8DJuNcMO+eMCDNqvVwhZa3K0hLyH7rEKAc
	 llaa4V4CL5T5VyRfE3R29oaEOABfSJzNh/Ri59zw=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113115] [14 Regression] ICE In
 extract_constrain_insn_cached recog.cc with ppc64le-linux-gnu crosscompiler
 from r14-3592-g9ea1248604d7b6
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 05:08:45 +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: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
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-113115-4-BlWvtU7rb1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113115-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113115-4@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=3D113115

--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #4)
> Yes, I agree it's duplicated of PR109987, Jeevitha's commit just exposed
> this known issue, since we are in stage 3, I wonder if we can go with
> power9-vector guarding first
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587310.html) sin=
ce
> power9-vector still exists in this release, and we can try to remove these
> workaround options in next release. (Sorry that I missed to follow up the
> power{8,9}-vector removal)

I really dislike the -mpower{8,9}-vector options, but maybe it's too late to
remove them for this release?  I'm not sure how involved/invasive that patch
would be.  Segher, do you have a preference on remove them now or use the
workaround above and remove in the next release?=