This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][RTL ifcvt] PR rtl-optimization/71594: ICE in noce_emit_cmove due to mismatched source modes

Hi Bernd,

On 04/07/16 12:08, Bernd Schmidt wrote:

On 07/04/2016 12:28 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:


On 24/06/16 09:32, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,

In this PR we get an ICE when trying to emit a conditional move
through noce_convert_multiple_sets.
The comment in the patch explains the situation but we get a
two-instruction sequence like:
(insn 20 19 21 3 (set (reg:SI 89 [ _5 ])
        (reg:SI 88 [ _4 ])) wice.c:8 82 {*movsi_internal}
(insn 21 20 25 3 (set (reg:HI 90 [ a_lsm.10 ])
        (subreg:HI (reg:SI 89 [ _5 ]) 0)) wice.c:8 84 {*movhi_internal}

+      /* We allow simple lowpart register subreg SET sources in
+     bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets.  Be careful when processing
+     sequences like:
+     (set (reg:SI r1) (reg:SI r2))
+     (set (reg:HI r3) (subreg:HI (r1)))
+     For the second insn new_val or old_val (r1 in this example) will be
+     taken from the temporaries and have the wider mode which will not
+     match with the mode of the other source of the conditional move, so
+     we'll end up trying to emit r4:HI = cond ? (r1:SI) : (r3:HI).
+     Wrap the two cmove operands into subregs if appropriate to prevent
+     that.  */
+      if (GET_MODE (new_val) != GET_MODE (temp))
+    {
+      machine_mode src_mode = GET_MODE (new_val);
+      machine_mode dst_mode = GET_MODE (temp);
+      gcc_assert (GET_MODE_SIZE (src_mode) > GET_MODE_SIZE (dst_mode));
+      new_val = lowpart_subreg (dst_mode, new_val, src_mode);

The question I have would be what happens if you have the inverse of the sequence you expect, maybe with multi-word regs?

(set (reg:SI 0) (reg:SI x))
(set (reg:DI y) (reg:DI 0))

That seems like it would fail the assert. Maybe this is something we need to catch in the bb_ok function.

That does seem like it could cause trouble but I couldn't think of how that sequence could appear or what its
semantics would be. Would assigning to the SImode reg 0 in your example not touch the upper bits of the DImode

In any case, bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets doesn't keep track of dependencies between the instructions
so I think the best place to handle this case would be in noce_convert_multiple_sets where instead of the assert
in this patch we'd just end_sequence () and return FALSE.
Would that be preferable?

Thanks for the review,


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]