From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67116 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2018 23:40:58 -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 67103 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2018 23:40:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wATNcwIV072289 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:40:55 -0500 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2p2r4uv1wr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:40:55 -0500 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:53 -0000 Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.26) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:51 -0000 Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.111]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id wATNeoma18808834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:50 GMT Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD72AC05F; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02134AC05E; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from otta.local (unknown [9.85.179.85]) by b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR87496: ICE in aggregate_value_p at gcc/function.c:2046 From: Peter Bergner To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: GCC Patches , Michael Meissner References: <20181129172645.GD23873@gate.crashing.org> <08b106d4-7bee-c067-5c37-755a8031d8e5@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <08b106d4-7bee-c067-5c37-755a8031d8e5@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 18112923-0040-0000-0000-0000049AB2EA X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010145; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000270; SDB=6.01124670; UDB=6.00577119; IPR=6.00904797; MB=3.00024390; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-11-29 23:40:52 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18112923-0041-0000-0000-000008A3CA0F Message-Id: X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg02517.txt.bz2 On 11/29/18 1:31 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 11/29/18 11:26 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:27:19PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >>> PR87496 shows a bug where we ICE if we attempt to use -mabi=ieeelongdouble >>> and -mno-popcntd. The IEEE128 support requires full ISA 2.06 (aka POWER7) >>> support, so we really should throw an error when using those options >>> together. Ditto for -mabi=ieeelongdouble and -mno-vsx. The patch below >>> does that. >>> >>> Ok for mainline once bootstrap and regtesting are complete and clean? >> >> Okay. Eventually we shouldn't allow selecting popcntd independently from >> -mcpu=, but that day isn't here yet. So, okay for trunk, and backports >> if wanted. Thanks! > > Ok, committed to mainline. It looks like GCC8 needs the same patch. > I'll have to look closer at GCC7 on whether it needs it too, since the > code seems to be a little different. Ok, both GCC8 and GCC7 need the backport. I committed the backport to GCC8 and will do the same for GCC7 once the freeze is over. Peter