Re: [EXT] Re: [Patch 1/4][Aarch64] v2: Implement Aarch64 SIMD ABI

[Steve Ellcey <sellcey@marvell.com>]

On Wed, 2018-12-12 at 11:39 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> 
> Steve Ellcey <sellcey@marvell.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 17:34 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > > +          (match_operand:TX 2 "register_operand" "w"))
> > > > +     (set (mem:TX (plus:P (match_dup 0)
> > > > +                  (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand"
> > > > "n")))
> > > > +          (match_operand:TX 3 "register_operand" "w"))])]
> > > 
> > > Think this last part should be:
> > > 
> > >      (set (mem:TX (plus:P (plus:P (match_dup 0)
> > >                                   (match_dup 4))
> > >                           (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand"
> > > "n")))
> > >           (match_operand:TX 3 "register_operand" "w"))])]
> > 
> > I think you are right about this.  What I have for
> > loadwb_pair<TX:mode>_<P:mode> matches what is there for
> > loadwb_pair<GPF:mode>_<P:mode>.  If this one is wrong, then I assume
> > the others are wrong too?  This won't make a practical difference since
> > we call these with gen_loadwb_pair*_* calls and not via pattern
> > recognition, but still they should be right.  Should I change them
> > all?  I did not change this as part of this patch.
> 
> I think we should fix the new pattern, but I agree fixing the others
> should be a separate patch.
> 
> Patch LGTM with that change.

I am not sure this is right.  I created a patch (separate from any of
the SIMD changes) to fix the storewb_pair<GPI:mode>_<P:mode> and
storewb_pair<GPF:mode>_<P:mode> and when I try to build GCC with
that change, gcc aborts while building libgcc.  I didn't think
this change could affect the build but it appears to do so.


/home/sellcey/gcc-md-fix/src/gcc/libgcc/static-object.mk:17: recipe for
target 'addtf3.o' failed
make[1]: *** [addtf3.o] Error 1
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
/home/sellcey/gcc-md-fix/src/gcc/libgcc/static-object.mk:17: recipe for
target 'unwind-dw2.o' failed
make[1]: *** [unwind-dw2.o] Error 1
0x86bc7b dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr
        /home/sellcey/gcc-md-fix/src/gcc/gcc/dwarf2cfi.c:1910
0x86acaf dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr
        /home/sellcey/gcc-md-fix/src/gcc/gcc/dwarf2cfi.c:1616
0x86c13b dwarf2out_frame_debug
        /home/sellcey/gcc-md-fix/src/gcc/gcc/dwarf2cfi.c:2169
0x86c13b scan_insn_after
        /home/sellcey/gcc-md-fix/src/gcc/gcc/dwarf2cfi.c:2511


The patch I was trying was:


diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
index 6657316..3530dd4 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
@@ -1464,7 +1464,8 @@
      (set (mem:GPI (plus:P (match_dup 0)
                           (match_dup 4)))
          (match_operand:GPI 2 "register_operand" "r"))
-     (set (mem:GPI (plus:P (match_dup 0)
+     (set (mem:GPI (plus:P (plus:P (match_dup 0)
+                                  (match_dup 4))
                           (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand" "n")))
          (match_operand:GPI 3 "register_operand" "r"))])]
   "INTVAL (operands[5]) == INTVAL (operands[4]) + GET_MODE_SIZE (<GPI:MODE>mode)"
@@ -1480,7 +1481,8 @@
      (set (mem:GPF (plus:P (match_dup 0)
                           (match_dup 4)))
          (match_operand:GPF 2 "register_operand" "w"))
-     (set (mem:GPF (plus:P (match_dup 0)
+     (set (mem:GPF (plus:P (plus:P (match_dup 0)
+                                  (match_dup 4))
                           (match_operand:P 5 "const_int_operand" "n")))
          (match_operand:GPF 3 "register_operand" "w"))])]
   "INTVAL (operands[5]) == INTVAL (operands[4]) + GET_MODE_SIZE (<GPF:MODE>mode)"