From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-471041-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26856 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2014 22:55:07 -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
Received: (qmail 26793 invoked by uid 48); 17 Dec 2014 22:55:03 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/64110] [5 Regression] ICE: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:55:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64110-4-b9detxe70C@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64110-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64110-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg02048.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110

--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Looking at the generated assembly, I see there:
> >         movw    %di, -80(%rbp)
> >         vpbroadcastw    -80(%rbp), %ymm1
> >         vmovdqa %ymm1, -80(%rbp)
> > I'd have expected
> >         vmovd   %edi, %xmm1
> >         vpbroadcastw    %xmm1, %ymm1
> >         vmovdqa %ymm1, -80(%rbp)
> > Is there some bug in the *vec_dupv16hi pattern that LRA can't use the !r
> > alternative?  %di should be valid nonimmediate_operand in HImode.  For e.g.
> 
> I know about the problem.  It is coming from a different treatment of ! in
> LRA and reload.  I am going to work on this but as the fix would be in very
> sensitive LRA part. I am afraid to fix it before my vacation.  So probably
> it will be solved only in January.

Np, and thanks a lot.

The ! has been added by me for PR63594, so it isn't there from the era when
i?86 backend was using reload.  If there is a better way to express that RA
should prefer to use memory or xmm register and only use r constraint if it
already is in a r register and doesn't need to be reloaded, I can use that. 
Whether it is ?, ??? or something else.  ! description in gcc docs just fitted
most what I wanted...