Bootstrap and regtest running on s390x-redhat-linux.

The new sigfpe-eh.c fails with

    internal compiler error: RTL check: expected elt 0 type 'e' or 'u', have 
'w' (rtx const_int)

This is most likely due to a typo: XEXP (*op1, 0) was used, when
XEXP (*op1, 0) was intended.  This did not cause any user-visible
problems, because reversed_comparison_code_parts ignores the
respective argument, and the release compiler is built without RTL
checks.

gcc/ChangeLog:

2019-09-02  Ilya Leoshkevich  <i...@linux.ibm.com>

        * config/s390/s390.c (s390_canonicalize_comparison): Use XEXP
        (*op0, 1) instead of XEXP (*op1, 0).

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2019-09-02  Ilya Leoshkevich  <i...@linux.ibm.com>

        * gcc.target/s390/sigfpe-eh.c: New test.
---
 gcc/config/s390/s390.c                    |  2 +-
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/sigfpe-eh.c | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/sigfpe-eh.c

diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.c b/gcc/config/s390/s390.c
index fa17d7d5d08..24784266848 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.c
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.c
@@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ s390_canonicalize_comparison (int *code, rtx *op0, rtx 
*op1,
       if (*code == EQ)
        new_code = reversed_comparison_code_parts (GET_CODE (*op0),
                                                   XEXP (*op0, 0),
-                                                  XEXP (*op1, 0), NULL);
+                                                  XEXP (*op0, 1), NULL);
       else
        new_code = GET_CODE (*op0);
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/sigfpe-eh.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/sigfpe-eh.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..52b0bf39d9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/sigfpe-eh.c
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-march=z196 -O2 -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions" } */
+
+extern float f (void);
+extern float g (void);
+
+float h (float x, float y)
+{
+  return x < y ? f () : g ();
+}
-- 
2.21.0

Reply via email to