From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 09BD5386F47D; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:48:04 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 09BD5386F47D From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/96974] [10/11 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vector_types_for_stmt compiling for SVE Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:48:04 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.3 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, 18 Jan 2021 13:48:05 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96974 --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Stam Markianos-Wright from comment #5) > I'm tempted to try and add a reverse: >=20 > || multiple_p (*stmt_vectype_out, nunits_vectype) >=20 > And then regtest, but I probably need to do more reading around to figure= out > what we really should be expecting each case! I don't think that's right. If nunits_vectype is not a multiple of stmt_vectype then the stmt_vectype contains (or might contain) unused elements. The vectoriser isn't set up to work like that: all operations are currently supposed to be full-vector operations (possibly predicated, on SVE and AVX). AFAICT the assert is correct and it's showing up a problem elsewhere.=