https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97228
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So for
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ifc-cd.c (internal compiler error)
I see before ISEL changes like
@@ -180,16 +180,12 @@
vect_b1_24.24_112 = vect_a1_16.12_97 + { 1, 1, 1, 1 };
vect_b1_25.25_114 = vect_a1_16.12_97 + { 2, 2, 2, 2 };
_118 = vect_a2_18.15_100 > { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
- vect_patt_35.26_119 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_118, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
_122 = vect__8.23_110 == { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
- vect_patt_26.27_123 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_122, vect_patt_35.26_119, { 0, 0, 0, 0
}>;
- _125 = vect_patt_26.27_123 != { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
+ _125 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_122, _118, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
vect_patt_44.28_126 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_125, vect_b1_25.25_114,
vect_b1_24.24_112>;
vect_patt_37.31_138 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_125, vect_b1_24.24_112,
vect_a1_16.12_97>;
- vect_patt_36.32_143 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_122, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
_146 = vect_a3_20.18_103 < { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
- vect_patt_72.33_147 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_146, vect_patt_36.32_143, { 0, 0, 0, 0
}>;
- _149 = vect_patt_72.33_147 != { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
+ _149 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_146, _122, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
vect_patt_12.34_150 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_149, vect_patt_37.31_138,
vect_patt_44.28_126>;
vect__ifc__73.35_154 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_122, vect_patt_12.34_150, { 0, 0, 0,
0 }>;
MEM <vector(4) int> [(int *)vectp_y.19_105] = vect__ifc__73.35_154;
where the difference is that we end up with a used vector comparison
that is not supported by the target (see also the other PR which Richard
has kindly taken).
Now, folding produces
_118 = vect_a2_18.15_100 > { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
_122 = vect__8.23_110 == { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
_125 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_122, _118, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
that's still not fully simplified, if written as bitwise ops it could be
as simple as
_125 = _122 & _118;
but then this will probably make the issue worse ;)
I think this is a duplicate of that other bug.
