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 9AC263858D1E; Mon,  3 Oct 2022 22:41:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9AC263858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1664836886;
	bh=V8NO0IffOkFdiCd7H52zffG/Wt1QsDOadxHlt/MP7k4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=lS1SC5sHSp2tDiiW8LjvGo4hlCQFIyAKDtLSwJNjMTIvoO4gkydRuw/+KtFYaXI09
	 9KfpH/hTuRFxBC1KdIc5wDUXF4uAoz/QoCOurBYPayZh0qeZ66SvtsRlHoyfIae+YN
	 Fe+iMJp4MEq/0RteU4Jw9pyFq8g4JFvvL+/xsDLk=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/98519] rs6000: @pcrel unsupported on this instruction
 error in pveclib
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 22:41:26 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98519-4-KKKSgezywq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98519-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98519-4@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=3D98519

--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #29)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #28)
> > All prefixed addresses, pcrel or R=3D0, are valid always.  The original=
 code
> > is correct.
>=20
> Well they're only valid when compiling for power10, but we probably don't
> generate pcrel addresses unless we're compiling for power10, so ok.

Of course, generating prefixed instructions for a CPU that does not support
that is not valid.  The same is true for any optional instruction or addres=
sing
form.  GCC does not generate those.

> > But lxsd cannot use "m" as constraint anyway.  It needs "wY", and that =
will
> > work fine here?
>=20
> "wY" might be correct for lxsd, but I don't see how using "wY" instead of
> "m" will stop us from generating a pcrel here, since mem_operand_ds_form()
> doesn't disallow pcrel addresses.  Ie, lxsd is a red herring to the actual
> bug.

"m" is not correct for "lxsd" (and even "Y" is only because we now require
"Y<>" to allow update form insns).

I mistakenly though that "wY" does not allow prefixed.  But it does.

We have to disallow all (*all*) operands that require prefixed insns, until
we can handle those properly.=