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 908443858D1E; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:44:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 908443858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708353874;
	bh=f7F0ZHCBsDHZonBuW1Dwrpr6TGjYYr1p50FlQlElGJE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VLx1kJR616uFG6BxF0Bl2wN7sK+vSQE1sR03mGWfvASx2fqyt+bFyl84eNHDtXgDE
	 YvABi1oTBeBgvEGcZ+pRMLi+VNjUZTpnVueQUdH1dpfqBdMrKDI0o9VK1uj2fAeGqO
	 1/j0J14BxZYV06xHQpcSp/lJuclDqI9iqUDfyuxo=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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 14:44:34 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-z87vCH9kvj@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 #12 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113988
>=20
> --- 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 sa=
y vector
> > > > types instead of these extra large integer types.
> > >=20
> > > Hmm.  Maybe we want a target hook to specify the "move mode" for a gi=
ven
> > > 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=
 way ...
> >=20
> > Or we refuse to use integer types for > MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE sizes and
> > instead always try VNQImode?  For memcpy folding I mean.
>=20
> Yeah, and punt if that mode isn't supported.

Or simply use mode_for_size with MODE_VECTOR_INT (though that doesn't
check targetm.vector_mode_supported_p for vector modes).  Just
in case a target doesn't have QImode component support.=