This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
target/8869: ICE with const variable optimization and MMX builtins
- From: otaylor at redhat dot com
- To: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Dec 2002 05:04:26 -0000
- Subject: target/8869: ICE with const variable optimization and MMX builtins
- Reply-to: otaylor at redhat dot com
>Number: 8869
>Category: target
>Synopsis: ICE with const variable optimization and MMX builtins
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: ice-on-legal-code
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Sat Dec 07 21:06:00 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: otaylor@redhat.com
>Release: CVS head, 7 December 2002
>Organization:
>Environment:
Linux/ia32
>Description:
There seems to be problems related to compile time
determinable constants as arguments of the MMX builtin functions.
(This bug appears to occur with gcc-3.2 as well, though
I've only tested the Red Hat 8 compiler, not stock 3.2)
>How-To-Repeat:
The following code, when compiled with:
gcc -c -O1 -mmmx -march=i686 -mcpu=i686 constant-pool-bug.c
===
typedef int v4hi __attribute__ ((mode(V4HI)));
typedef int di __attribute__ ((mode(DI)));
static const di mmx_constants[1] = { 0x00ff000000000000LL };
v4hi foo (v4hi val)
{
return __builtin_ia32_paddw (val, (v4hi)mmx_constants[0]);
}
===
Produces:
===
constant-pool-bug.c: In function `foo':
constant-pool-bug.c:9: internal compiler error: in output_constant_pool, at varasm.c:3485
===
This does not occur with -O0.
Note that the cast to 'v4hi' seems to be important here.
If you try the same thing using porl, which takes a 'di'
directly:
===
typedef int di __attribute__ ((mode(DI)));
static const di mmx_constants[1] = { 0x00ff000000000000LL };
di foo (di val)
{
return __builtin_ia32_por (val, mmx_constants[0]);
}
===
You get a different ICE:
===
constant-pool-bug.c: In function `foo':
constant-pool-bug.c:7: internal compiler error: in ix86_expand_binop_builtin, at config/i386/i386.c:12819
===
Which I believe is a a duplicate of #8600. (Some
circumstantial evidence indicates that #8600 is hiding
this bug here, not vice versa, but I'm not sure about
that.)
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: