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 B6FFB3853D12; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:54:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B6FFB3853D12
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1692802498;
	bh=8keJsJWmWuZeu1rvJNhlwuK+kwCG9d3OtpEbLd6CMBc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=I4uP7okArkQ8tBjBbmYLVfQvLlUzc7oNr2joiPLniStEmvyHCTr0jNvaaOq9C8ImN
	 S1WdU7jo2oMENIgh1MoNryZkh3gW0WWMq1MhgaNDYDoeUC0AnF0Pt0/FPQOFYZXX6I
	 kSCEu91fHrkxZsvWYq/aPvZEdUkKzHNtTx4LzuBE=
From: "ubizjak 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: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:54:57 +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: ubizjak 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-OHsRmVKj7i@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 #7 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)=20
> > So, the compiler still expects vec_concat/vec_select patterns to be pre=
sent.
>=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.

I guess the original patch is the way to go then.=