From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 634283858D20 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 634283858D20 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 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 634283858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713346121; cv=none; b=guhygSO/i+sezgRdvyODgweub3VnFjcSrFg2FiiqNerwufksI3UYCukuAKEHvaKKVpePGllNJeBzJ5+nVFJ84zofuUxWEGWqoeQsbqDzQJStXe1r40aEKhEJ9ZZ61XTUNeVznpkVqR1zi+X/DnPg2syCawjRKKY1DhSJplzqhj8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713346121; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bn47/e3G6PqfEtK5amYLVS/vZqfC5GYZNAry141ZTOU=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=qrgNJRRcq2cl3txo2pzC5d3u0WHyvl8g3w+S5iaRavWZFD0QfzSkiaw2w/yAs8cvaeskY/7mt5MiGchpvEQL6luZXoXNtd5vvw4IsUXjGpvwCwcpCP9rFAt/zzUMzEbT4sHGy5asv2oK/nE3qFYkD1fBe+fk23cPsjMJgC/qdh0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 43H8tNow013535; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:38 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=SvxZnwIsgCzuG0NKQMXtGtpAtDtylA1B8j2pKQUJJw8=; b=pHASgJlVTWWTtlQPaia/QTfvAkI8NGgSra6cw6/YeL2/Llarg+a6npw7NdvA7gO3PYpo pMoE25VEIQ5OUQWm1o/JYxxmx6brDAYpHPq6Tz4Fm+Thahf4oRNRhE1q/S3L4nNTap2z 63DTxG7JFsoSGF49IUaIxegTRbVSF5iTMHgg8kFdrP1EY0StyQhk7L7ZGqZASPwgTh8e AQtsCdDhS9rTE9Te79oj1dHX6g7gENAROa5PIX8/eqHYAi8uoKp6rf23+GWo8LHRDARu D49RJUdYGxwDJbXVAFd8bE+WYb3DNoijy62KJeDs7cz1+B++AGhHNKNuI1fTMvRD1wgF Lw== Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xjbb602cw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:38 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 43H6tnZF011111; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:37 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.230]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xg732k2ba-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:37 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.104]) by smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 43H9SVoB16187786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:34 GMT Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D314720040; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D2A20043; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.197.232.96] (unknown [9.197.232.96]) by smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:28:29 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:28:28 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] rs6000: Don't ICE when compiling the __builtin_vsx_splat_2di built-in [PR113950] Content-Language: en-US To: jeevitha Cc: GCC Patches , Segher Boessenkool , Michael Meissner , Peter Bergner References: <4530902d-33e1-06d0-7e6a-187ec9905375@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 8lgZxhM2eTcbReMZ7NpQwyC3bdENE_Ud X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 8lgZxhM2eTcbReMZ7NpQwyC3bdENE_Ud X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-04-17_08,2024-04-16_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2404010000 definitions=main-2404170065 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP 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: Hi, on 2024/4/17 17:05, jeevitha wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/03/24 7:00 am, Kewen.Lin wrote: > >>> The bogus vsx_splat_ code goes all the way back to GCC 8, so we >>> should backport this fix. Segher and Ke Wen, can we get an approval >>> to backport this to all the open release branches (GCC 13, 12, 11)? >>> Thanks. >> >> Sure, okay for backporting this to all active branches, thanks! >> > > I need clarification regarding the backporting of PR113950 to GCC 12. > > We encountered an issue while resolving merge conflicts in GCC 12. The > problem lies in extra deletions in the diff due to cherry-picking. Now, > we're unsure about the best approach for handling the backport. > > To provide context, I have included the relevant diff snippet below, > > diff --cc gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md > index c45794fb9ed,f135fa079bd..00000000000 > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md > @@@ -4562,8 -4666,8 +4562,8 @@@ > rtx op1 = operands[1]; > if (MEM_P (op1)) > operands[1] = rs6000_force_indexed_or_indirect_mem (op1); > - else if (!REG_P (op1)) > - op1 = force_reg (mode, op1); > + else > - operands[1] = force_reg (mode, op1); > ++ operands[1] = force_reg (mode, op1); > }) > > I'm seeking your advice on how to proceed with the backport. Do you > think the above change is acceptable, or should we also backport Segher's > commit e0e3ce634818b83965b87512938490df4d57f81d, which caused the conflict?. I prefer the former, which is the least modification, for release branches let's introduce as few changes as possible, and the amendment on the conflict is minor and straightforward. BR, Kewen > There was no regression with both of these changes. > > Jeevitha. >