From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 0D4AC385C6EF; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 01:12:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0D4AC385C6EF
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1692839569;
	bh=NRonJANSSJwwmAvbZjzRVYNmwX6Co9v1mxQl6n/WJkc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=iMqosDWDznXwOA2fQ2dVgx0lS8OT40EUb/Vst4MV21ZsNQMa1XOPtU8enqGXqRJaD
	 WOXqyw7HBIexzMXR29ycD2B4385zugh/SNIFOUNP2SZsQ9dWC1JJQlcJtQD/7FH1Av
	 fR8KQfNF1r48PlK2KE4ucNXY5RIdnoz2HJ51hm4Q=
From: "crazylht at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/94866] Failure to optimize pinsrq of 0 with index 1 into
 movq
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 01:12:45 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: crazylht at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94866-4-1ZE5LIcLG1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94866-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94866-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94866

--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak from comment #7)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)=20
> > > So, the compiler still expects vec_concat/vec_select patterns to be p=
resent.
> >=20
> > v2df foo_v2df (v2df x)
> >  {
> >    return __builtin_shuffle (x, (v2df) { 0, 0 }, (v2di) { 0, 2 });
> >  }
> >=20
> > The testcase is not a typical vec_merge case, for vec_merge, the shuffle
> > index should be {0, 3}. Here it happened to be a vec_merge because the
> > second vector is all zero. And yes for this case, we still need to
> > vec_concat:vec_select pattern.
>=20
> I guess the original patch is the way to go then.

Yes.=