From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 47B78386F02B; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:14:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 47B78386F02B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1587474862; bh=oKBfKOoMtYIBAdQudaiflBwK2Z90r1VwNbl690vIYf4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nO9VmgWXdhN1LxnLOui4zU/XLSOUVW3WFvO5+14N7NBZFWzQR5XVOUtq241uRo0Ye wAGV6+hZxynK4LBK59WWq323jbXPFpV/OzV+x5OlFyVgtdBAZ5MPjz/nh86dta5XtH cNRbAhtUxz4Z4uVH+O1nU1ZYM22kbbranHuASnCg= From: "ams at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/94248] [amdgcn] Doesn't build with RTL checking Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:14:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ams at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:14:22 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94248 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4) > (In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #3) > > Actually, I think that recent changes to the register alignment mean th= at > > this can't happen any more, so the whole check is probably obsolete. >=20 > I don't know exactly what "this" and "the whole check" relate to, but I do > reconfirm that without Jakub's 'reg_overlap_mentioned_p' patch, I'm still > running into the ICE. I meant that I don't believe that overlapping registers can happen, thus the condition will always be false. Yes, the REG_P can still ICE with the additional checking enabled.=