From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 638053858D3C for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:12:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 638053858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 28583t2t020031; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:12:05 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=QSNu6FXO3DfSWXIBlufee+5oyYfomaF+9NNSCihrBgU=; b=Qx8L9ShVeOsxZw7HuHOkjmBo/3vNrJJG7B0rXvpPoJRSgA5vOQkSIbnlRKbo9sWmBrrY QBZsa03g07rSTmZhMp8/ZtxL8TdgEpG3+GAIndmlB18drC6KlC22G0Ezb0df/vE9hXm5 KFx/Ed4yuVlXf5LBYnkcU9xBaeVlStzo20+NaMvSwHVanulcpz5rWn6xBezrOobPYWlQ tE83QPmYRYT4JOTRvAujVCElyFHWwrdQMdrgVWayzL/dnPFVy6Oa3rH41FKDuCWNASJ1 MpZZ7RpGeDl7DR6uaJGuU8DityJrgvqp8IRWmQoudw4Hkg+iKmx6pJKj8idet2VPGPPX 6A== Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jdbmpb7cq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Sep 2022 08:12:05 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 28585wVt020968; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:12:02 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3jbxj8t49a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Sep 2022 08:12:02 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2858Bxnf42598784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:11:59 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2B9A4062; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:11:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CE0A4054; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:11:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.35.246] (unknown [9.200.35.246]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 08:11:57 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <6ca5bb85-0085-ae17-98f6-5bb3b709346b@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 16:11:55 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Don't ICE when we disassemble an MMA variable [PR101322] Content-Language: en-US To: Peter Bergner Cc: GCC Patches , Segher Boessenkool References: <9c6a44db-1239-466a-2990-42207b7eb264@linux.ibm.com> <6cf4ceb2-9deb-93b4-bd94-ab08c08eb330@linux.ibm.com> <20220831205126.GU25951@gate.crashing.org> <67da6fae-184d-4414-cb04-53e295abc477@linux.ibm.com> <6099d400-1030-e6ae-f114-5ad630b7bd03@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: <6099d400-1030-e6ae-f114-5ad630b7bd03@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: w-zJPhPPCAyBLFqCq_BjEJ9ZGHjY9wdF X-Proofpoint-GUID: w-zJPhPPCAyBLFqCq_BjEJ9ZGHjY9wdF X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-09-05_05,2022-09-05_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=898 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2209050038 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: on 2022/9/1 22:17, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 9/1/22 3:29 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >>> I have no idea why ptr_vector_*_type would behave differently here than >>> build_pointer_type (vector_*_type_node). Using the build_pointer_type() >>> fixed it for me, so that's why I went with it. :-) Maybe this is a bug >>> in lto??? >> >> Thanks for your time to reproduce this! >> >> The only difference is that ptr_vector_*_type are built from the >> qualified_type based on vector_*_type_node, instead of directly from >> vector_*_type_node. I'm interested to have a further look at this later. > > If you look into this, please let me know. I'd like to know what you > find out. I just filed PR106833 for it. BR, Kewen