From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-335819-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 355 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2010 16:19:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 342 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2010 16:19:35 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_ZJ
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:19:31 +0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/46088] [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in ix86_binary_operator_ok (i386.c:15025) with -Os -fnon-call-exceptions -fpeel-loops
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-46088-4-HOCnFJphj4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46088-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46088-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:19:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00552.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46088

--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2010-11-04 16:19:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)

> We're matching
> 
> (define_insn "*ashl<mode>3_cconly"

AFAICS, there is nothing wrong with the pattern:

  [(set (reg FLAGS_REG)
    (compare
      (ashift:SWI (match_operand:SWI 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "0")
              (match_operand:QI 2 "<shift_immediate_operand>" "<S>"))
      (const_int 0)))
   (clobber (match_scratch:SWI 0 "=<r>"))]