From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 32E043851C20; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:41:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 32E043851C20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1593430872; bh=o5XsYAvSZ8Vhfr4KSJe9qPvrrtspCkia84c+N4CQSVI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AeFz2YGC8dhIaMLkfxxam72QHVPn7cRzrYlyQ9B+b4E8RQSUnDzmAibinfmKfQifZ xAc+vp5XYwPnZ9ZYjs4e6Q7GalgRi0iccM8sB8pD5Vg5M14dmDKB2jEWja8mLcPza8 lyhceE3mpd+63NRz/dCGFhWf98uCoybx2DbWwfuk= From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/95830] [11 regression][MIPS/MSA] internal compiler error: in do_store_flag, at expr.c:12247 start with gcc-11-1445-g502d63b6d61 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:41:11 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0 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: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:41:12 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95830 --- Comment #9 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka --- > We can't ignore them unless VEC_COND_EXPR lowering will process them. > That is, we have to check whether we can expand all instances of the > compares. This basically means we need to run "isel" on them but > not actually commit the IL change but instead lower all cases we > could not process. The question is what to do about for example >=20 > _34 =3D vect__1.7_28 =3D=3D vect__3.11_33; > vect_iftmp.12_35 =3D VEC_COND_EXPR <_34, vect__1.7_28, vect__2.10_31>; > foo (_34);=20=20 >=20 > where we can ISEL the VEC_COND_EXPR together with _34 but _34 is > live anyway. Do we want to both lower _34 (for the use in foo) > and keep it (for the purpose of VEC_COND_EXPR expansion)? Likely not as seen in PR95745 where a "temporary" tmp =3D A =3D=3D B is not guaranteed to be expandable and so we purge it. > I guess so. > OTOH if the target an expand VEC_COND_EXPR <_1 =3D=3D _2, ...> > then it can expand _1 =3D=3D _2 as VEC_COND_EXPR <_1 =3D=3D _2, {-1,-1,-1= },=20 > {0,0,0}> so this is exactly the case why I thought applying ISEL > on both together makes sense. Looks like it actually happens ... >=20 > Which means we don't actually need to lower the compare since > we can expand it as VEC_COND_EXPR? Yes, I would recommend skipping lowering of all the comparison that feeds VEC_COND_EXPR. I'm going to prepare a patch..=