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 2C524385802E; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:03:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2C524385802E
From: "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/99766] [11 Regression] ICE: unable to generate reloads
 with SVE code since r11-7807-gbe70bb5e
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:03:21 +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: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99766-4-FPmSZrbeCH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99766-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:03:21 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99766

--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> I wonder if the CT_RELAXED_MEMORY cases should be following
> on from CT_MEMORY rather than CT_SPECIAL_MEMORY.  They're really
> normal memory constraints that just happen to accept more than
> a standard constraint.

Yes, this is the right question.  The patch I am working on treats
CT_SPECIAL_MEMORY the same way as CT_MEMORY everywhere although it is enoug=
h to
do this only in lra-constraints.c.

After finishing testing I'll commit the patch. Unfortunately compiler farm
arm64 machines are too slow (2 runs of gcc tests take almost 8 hours to run
with -j8).  I guess I'll fix it tomorrow.=