[Bug rtl-optimization/60307] New: define_cond_exec with cc0 comparison generates wrong code, missing insn that sets cc0

[Bug rtl-optimization/60307] New: define_cond_exec with cc0 comparison generates wrong code, missing insn that sets cc0

[makhaloff at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60307

            Bug ID: 60307
           Summary: define_cond_exec with cc0 comparison generates wrong
                    code, missing insn that sets cc0
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: makhaloff at gmail dot com

Created attachment 32193
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32193&action=edit
Support conditional execution with cc0

My target has:
#define HAVE_cc0 1
#define HAVE_conditional_execution 1
(from generated file insn-config.h)

ce3 (ifcvt.c) pass converts conditional jump into conditional execution well.
But rtl_merge_blocks (cfgrtl.c) when removes conditional jump, it also removes
insn that sets cc0, without analyze if it might be used in following (just
inserted) cond_exec insn.
As result, we have cond_exec insn without cc0 setter.

I've fixed that moment. It works for me. All gcc tests are passed.
Patch is attached.

Alexey.

[Bug rtl-optimization/60307] define_cond_exec with cc0 comparison generates wrong code, missing insn that sets cc0

[mikpelinux at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60307

--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux at gmail dot com> ---
Which target is this?  Can you provide a test case?

[Bug rtl-optimization/60307] define_cond_exec with cc0 comparison generates wrong code, missing insn that sets cc0

[makhaloff at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60307

--- Comment #2 from Alexey Makhalov <makhaloff at gmail dot com> ---
It's new processor architecture. It doesn't present in GCC sources.

I've took a look through all targets and figured out that there are no targets
who supports cc0 and conditional execution together. So it looks like never
used/tested field.

Also I've met a problem with conditional move and cc0. I get ICE at reload
pass. I don't know what happens. I'm working on it now.