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 B5ECA3858CDA; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:40:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B5ECA3858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708353642;
	bh=FszAx09R8z+Mg6EKlptFiC9FCE2fP0T1YoJLK3BCLAw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=aHDXd3O0UG4msV2rCG9aNt6rBNigBwJpeCLdRYyo5pJnDFljyPLul1NRdDlbJk/kv
	 2+QqHuLhU5I2nN3MUdKqhwcbspbnDohsW2E6zVrEb1Pq+61OxemDRZcU4BYdKgLqIv
	 nXKAuTFJTN2ChB/kSBVP76pfqvpZkDTsGkT8/YPQ=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/113988] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower: internal
 compiler error: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5470
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:40:42 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
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: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113988-4-ESVSQKLyk8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113988-4@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=3D113988

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > > I think I can handle it like the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR case, bet with
> > > _BitInt(511) it would actually be a VCE, but when it is same size
> > > BITINT_TYPE to INTEGER_TYPE we choose NOP_EXPR.
> > > That said, I think it would be better if the memcpy folding used say =
vector
> > > types instead of these extra large integer types.
> >=20
> > Hmm.  Maybe we want a target hook to specify the "move mode" for a given
> > byte size and then we can use bitwise_type_for_mode to get a type?
> >=20
> > Maybe we can even get rid of that large integer mode requirement that w=
ay ...
>=20
> Or we refuse to use integer types for > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE sizes and
> instead always try VNQImode?  For memcpy folding I mean.

Yeah, and punt if that mode isn't supported.=