[PATCH][s390]: Fix the usage of store_bit_field in the backend.

[PATCH][s390]: Fix the usage of store_bit_field in the backend.

[Tamar Christina]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

Hi All,

I seem to have broken the s390 bootstrap because I added a new parameter to the
store_bit_field function to indicate whether the value the field of is being set
is currently undefined.

If it's undefined we use a subreg instead.  In this case the value of false
restores the old behavior.

Ok for master?

Thanks,
Tamar

gcc/ChangeLog:

	* config/s390/s390.cc (s390_expand_atomic): Pass false to store_bit_field to
    indicate that the value is not undefined.

--- inline copy of patch -- 
diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
index 444b1ec20d768d829ab19a41f114a91119335e00..5aaf76a94908c4d8f09aca5ac64ef3a418615b9e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
@@ -7468,7 +7468,7 @@ s390_expand_atomic (machine_mode mode, enum rtx_code code,
     case SET:
       if (ac.aligned && MEM_P (val))
 	store_bit_field (new_rtx, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode), 0,
-			 0, 0, SImode, val, false);
+			 0, 0, SImode, val, false, false);
       else
 	{
 	  new_rtx = expand_simple_binop (SImode, AND, new_rtx, ac.modemaski,




-- 

[-- Attachment #2: rb15926.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
index 444b1ec20d768d829ab19a41f114a91119335e00..5aaf76a94908c4d8f09aca5ac64ef3a418615b9e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
@@ -7468,7 +7468,7 @@ s390_expand_atomic (machine_mode mode, enum rtx_code code,
     case SET:
       if (ac.aligned && MEM_P (val))
 	store_bit_field (new_rtx, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode), 0,
-			 0, 0, SImode, val, false);
+			 0, 0, SImode, val, false, false);
       else
 	{
 	  new_rtx = expand_simple_binop (SImode, AND, new_rtx, ac.modemaski,

Re: [PATCH][s390]: Fix the usage of store_bit_field in the backend.

[Jeff Law]

On 7/8/2022 6:10 AM, Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Subject:
> [PATCH][s390]: Fix the usage of store_bit_field in the backend.
> From:
> Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Date:
> 7/8/2022, 6:10 AM
>
> To:
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> CC:
> nd@arm.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I seem to have broken the s390 bootstrap because I added a new parameter to the
> store_bit_field function to indicate whether the value the field of is being set
> is currently undefined.
>
> If it's undefined we use a subreg instead.  In this case the value of false
> restores the old behavior.
>
> Ok for master?
>
> Thanks,
> Tamar
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 	* config/s390/s390.cc (s390_expand_atomic): Pass false to store_bit_field to
>      indicate that the value is not undefined.
OK.  And I went ahead and pushed it to restore s390 to a buildable state.

jeff