From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701B2383E824 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:41:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 701B2383E824 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=richard.sandiford@arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FBA55D; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 06:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.98.126]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0A7F3F52E; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 06:41:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Richard Biener Mail-Followup-To: Richard Biener ,Martin =?utf-8?Q?Li=C5=A1ka?= , Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , David Edelsohn , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: Martin =?utf-8?Q?Li=C5=A1ka?= , Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , David Edelsohn Subject: Re: [stage1][PATCH] Lower VEC_COND_EXPR into internal functions. References: <5F0F38D2-DC37-4B67-8F48-C4C2FCC7D4CC@gmail.com> <3f84124b-f77e-1f8e-68d1-f0a7892d07b0@suse.cz> <20200529153933.GW31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200529170936.GY31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200529173758.GA31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200530130801.GD31009@gate.crashing.org> <16e3957c-e390-5984-b14e-dd3c70c3bd1c@suse.cz> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:41:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Richard Biener's message of "Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:04 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 13:41:08 -0000 Richard Biener writes: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:00 PM Martin Li=C5=A1ka wrote: >> >> On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> > So please be constructive. Like, provide a testcase that ICEs >> > with the FAILs replaced by gcc_unreachable (). Martin, may I suggest >> > to do this replacement and bootstrap/test? I think it would be nice >> > to have testsuite coverage for the FAILs, and maybe we have that >> > already. >> >> Hello. >> >> There's the suggested patch that survives bootstrap on ppc64le-linux-gnu >> and passes test-suite. > > OK, so can you please re-post the version of the VEC_COND_EXPR > patch that uses a regular IFN (without the static non-FAIL checking) > in a new thread? If there's no OK from rs6000 maintainers to remove > the FAILs then we'll go ahead with that version, unless Richard objects > here. Well, it seems unfortunate to have to do that. I think Martin's powerpc patch is the correct one. But assuming that the powerpc maintainers still object, I guess the options are: - Find enough global reviewers who are prepared to approve that patch, to override the powerpc maintainers. - Avoid conflict by going with the regular IFN patch. To be clear, this will ICE in exactly the same cases that Martin's powerpc patch does (and current master does), so there's no real benefit to the powerpc port from doing this. It just makes the code more complicated and means that other ports don't benefit from the static checking. In the circumstances, I agree the second is probably the most practical way forward. I can't help but think this is a process failure though. I don't think using regular IFNs has any technical merits, and it doesn't give Segher what he wants either (i.e. code that copes with failing vconds). Thanks, Richard