From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-398523-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13019 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2012 22:42:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 13006 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2012 22:42:30 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_XG
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; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:42:17 +0000
From: "PHHargrove at lbl dot gov" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/54142] ppc64 build failure - Unrecognized opcode: `sldi' (and `srdi`)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:42:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54142-4-EApL1MQfnd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54142-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54142-4@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: 2012-08/txt/msg00795.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142

--- Comment #9 from Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove at lbl dot gov> 2012-08-13 22:42:16 UTC ---
Following up on my previous experiment, I tried the same input with the xgcc
which is failing to build libdecnumber.  If also fails with the 1-line test
case:

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ cat q.c
unsigned long long foo(void) { return 0x00007FFF00000000LLU; }

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ /usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/ -m64 -O  ~/q.c
/tmp/cctmw5wO.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cctmw5wO.s:14: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `sldi'


Examining stderr when "-v" is passed to the two compilers reveals a KEY
difference:

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ gcc -m64 -O -v -c q.c 2>&1 | grep -w as
 as -a64 -mppc64 -many -V -Qy -o q.o /tmp/ccpjKGBl.s

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ /usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/ -m64 -O -v -c ~/q.c 2>&1 | grep -w as
 /usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/as -v -a64 -mcom -many -o q.o
/tmp/cctEFZq2.s


The difference (other than the use of the built-time wrapper script) is
"-mppc64" for the Red Hat built gcc-4.2.1 vs "-mcom" for the 4.8.0 snapshot. 
The following shows that this flag, not the presence of the wrapper script is
the origin of the failure:

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ /usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/as  -a64 -mcom -many -o q.o
q.s
q.s: Assembler messages:
q.s:14: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `sldi'

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ /usr/local/upc/compiler/bld/./gcc/as  -a64 -mppc64 -many -o
q.o q.s
[no error]

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ /usr/bin/as  -a64 -mcom -many -o q.o q.s
q.s: Assembler messages:
q.s:14: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `sldi'

{phargrov@fc6 ~}$ /usr/bin/as  -a64 -mppc64 -many -o q.o q.s
[no error]

So, assuming gas is correct in rejecting 'sldi' and 'srdi' in "common" mode the
question becomes, "why is gcc by default specifying a target to the assembler
which doesn't support the instructions it is generating?"

Of course, if 'sldi' and 'slri' ARE supposed to be supported in "common" mode,
then this is a binutils bug.