From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-382287-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21855 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2012 13:42:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 21841 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2012 13:42:49 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_TM
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, 02 Feb 2012 13:42:35 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/52091] [4.7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:42:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
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-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52091-4-kTakifBdnz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52091-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52091-4@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
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: 2012-02/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-02 13:41:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I think we should fail to vectorize D.2030_19 = prephitmp.17_21 & 65535, or any
> other non-phi/not vect_double_reduction_def stmt with a double reduction phi as
> a def_stmt.
> 
> We can either check this in every vectorizable_* for every operand, like this:
> Index: tree-vect-stmts.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tree-vect-stmts.c   (revision 183125)
> +++ tree-vect-stmts.c   (working copy)
> @@ -3326,7 +3326,8 @@ vectorizable_operation (gimple stmt, gimple_stmt_i
> 
>    op0 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
>    if (!vect_is_simple_use_1 (op0, loop_vinfo, bb_vinfo,
> -                            &def_stmt, &def, &dt[0], &vectype))
> +                            &def_stmt, &def, &dt[0], &vectype)
> +      || dt[0] == vect_double_reduction_def)
>      {
>        if (vect_print_dump_info (REPORT_DETAILS))
>          fprintf (vect_dump, "use not simple.");
> 
> 
> or pass stmt or stmt_info to vect_is_simple_use and check it there.

Are you going to write a patch for this?  Not sure how exactly would you like
it to look up.

> > OT, it is strange that we are creating a reduction for a loop which loops
> > exactly as many times as there are units in the vector, that doesn't seem to be
> > profitable.
> > 
> 
> Right, but doesn't cost model catch this?

For simple testcases it does apparently.