On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 12/13/21 10:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:30:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:48 AM Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.ibm.com> > >> wrote: > >>> PR103624 observes that we get segfaults for the 64-bit darn builtins when > >>> compiled > >>> on a 32-bit architecture. The old built-in infrastructure requires > >>> TARGET_64BIT, and > >>> this was missed in the new support. Moving these two builtins from the > >>> [power9] > >>> stanza to the [power9-64] stanza solves the problem. > >>> > >>> Tested the fix on a powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu cross. Bootstrapped and > >>> tested on > >>> powerpc64le-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this okay for trunk? > >> Okay. > > No, as I said before this is not correct, not without a lot more > > explanation at least. We should not copy errors in the old code into > > the new code. That is negating one of the main advantages of > > reimplementing this in the first place! > > Can you please be more specific? > > All I have from you before is "It should work for 32-bit though?" I > responded in the > bug report that __builtin_darn_32 was used for this purpose. I haven't seen a > response to that. What do you want to see happen?
That of course does not work for _raw. These builtins should just return a "long", just like __builtin_ppc_mftb does. All three of them. > The patterns in rs6000.md are darn_32, gated by TARGET_P9_MISC; darn_raw, > gated by > TARGET_P9_MISC && TARGET_64BIT; and darn, gated by TARGET_P9_MISC && > TARGET_64BIT. > The builtins correspond to these patterns in the obvious way. > > If you think that these patterns should be enabled differently, that's fine, > but > that's a completely different patch than fixing the incorrect built-ins to > match > what the patterns do and thus avoid ICEing. Avoiding ICEs should not be a goal. It should be a side effect of doing the right thing in the first place! Segher
