From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81427 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2018 23:51:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 81418 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2018 23:51:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:51:36 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w1DNpWVS028096; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:33 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id w1DNpVYN028092; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:51:31 -0600 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:51:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Peter Bergner Cc: GCC Patches , Bill Schmidt , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR84279, powerpc64le ICE on cvc4 Message-ID: <20180213235131.GY21977@gate.crashing.org> References: <31e557e6-4b62-eeca-a1a3-173397c205e7@bergner.org> <20180213223428.GV21977@gate.crashing.org> <622b7e77-bfac-7e9d-de9d-5f63e8b6f2c0@vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <622b7e77-bfac-7e9d-de9d-5f63e8b6f2c0@vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg00801.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:07:26PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 2/13/18 4:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> This patch passed bootstrap and retesting on powerpc64le-linux with > >> no regressions. Ok for mainline? > > > > Okay, thanks! Does this need backports? > > Committed with your suggested change below. Thanks! > > It'd be easy to backport and should be fairly harmless. That said, I was > never able to create a simpler test case, using __builtin_altivec_lvx() > that would end up being re-recog'd as vsx_movv4si_64, so the only way I > know we can hit this is with Kelvin's optimization that replaces aligned > vsx loads/stores with altivec loads/stores and that optimization is only > on trunk. > > It's up to you whether you want the backport because you don't trust > me being able to create a failing test case. :-) We can backport without having a failing testcase. Let's do that for 7 at least? Segher