This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/50788] [4.7 Regression] ICE: in merge_overlapping_regs, at regrename.c:318 with -mavx -fpeel-loops -fstack-protector-all and __builtin_ia32_maskloadpd256
- From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:41:53 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/50788] [4.7 Regression] ICE: in merge_overlapping_regs, at regrename.c:318 with -mavx -fpeel-loops -fstack-protector-all and __builtin_ia32_maskloadpd256
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50788-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50788
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org, uros at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
Component|rtl-optimization |target
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot |unassigned at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-22 20:41:53 UTC ---
This appears to be a problem in the AVX maskmov patterns: operand 0 is seen as
a double output operand. The solution is either to use a match_operand for the
input with constraint 0 or to use '+' instead of '=' in the constraint. The
former is the preferred approach in this case though:
Index: config/i386/sse.md
===================================================================
--- config/i386/sse.md (revision 180235)
+++ config/i386/sse.md (working copy)
@@ -12298,7 +12298,7 @@ (define_insn "*avx2_maskmov<ssemodesuffi
(unspec:VI48_AVX2
[(match_operand:<sseintvecmode> 1 "register_operand" "x,x")
(match_operand:VI48_AVX2 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "m,x")
- (match_dup 0)]
+ (match_operand:VI48_AVX2 3 "nonimmediate_operand" "0,0")]
UNSPEC_MASKMOV))]
"TARGET_AVX2
&& (REG_P (operands[0]) == MEM_P (operands[2]))"
@@ -12313,7 +12313,7 @@ (define_insn "*avx_maskmov<ssemodesuffix
(unspec:VF
[(match_operand:<sseintvecmode> 1 "register_operand" "x,x")
(match_operand:VF 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "m,x")
- (match_dup 0)]
+ (match_operand:VF 3 "nonimmediate_operand" "0,0")]
UNSPEC_MASKMOV))]
"TARGET_AVX
&& (REG_P (operands[0]) == MEM_P (operands[2]))"
but the expanders have match_dup. Uros, would you mind taking it over? TIA.