guojiufu <guoji...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-06-09 16:00, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> As checking the code, there is a "gcc_assert (SCALAR_INT_MODE_P 
>>> (mode))"
>>> in "try_const_anchors".
>>> This assert seems correct because the function try_const_anchors cares
>>> about integer values currently, and modes other than SCALAR_INT_MODE_P
>>> are not needed to support.
>>> 
>>> This patch makes sure SCALAR_INT_MODE_P when calling 
>>> try_const_anchors.
>>> 
>>> This patch is raised when drafting below one.
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603530.html.
>>> With that patch, "{[%1:DI]=0;} stack_tie" with BLKmode runs into
>>> try_const_anchors, and hits the assert/ice.
>>> 
>>> Boostrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le} and x86_64.
>>> Is this ok for trunk?
>> 
>> Iff the correct fix at all (how can a CONST_INT have BLKmode?) then
>> I suggest to instead fix try_const_anchors to change
>> 
>>   /* CONST_INT is used for CC modes, but we should leave those alone.  
>> */
>>   if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) == MODE_CC)
>>     return NULL_RTX;
>> 
>>   gcc_assert (SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (mode));
>> 
>> to
>> 
>>   /* CONST_INT is used for CC modes, leave any non-scalar-int mode 
>> alone.  */
>>   if (!SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (mode))
>>     return NULL_RTX;
>> 
>
> This is also able to fix this issue.  there is a "Punt on CC modes" 
> patch
> to return NULL_RTX in try_const_anchors.
>
>> but as said I wonder how we arrive at a BLKmode CONST_INT and whether
>> we should have fended this off earlier.  Can you share more complete
>> RTL of that stack_tie?
>
>
> (insn 15 14 16 3 (parallel [
>              (set (mem/c:BLK (reg/f:DI 1 1) [1  A8])
>                  (const_int 0 [0]))
>          ]) "/home/guojiufu/temp/gdb.c":13:3 922 {stack_tie}
>       (nil))
>
> It is "set (mem/c:BLK (reg/f:DI 1 1) (const_int 0 [0])".

I'm not convinced this is correct RTL.  (unspec:BLK [(const_int 0)] ...)
would be though.  It's arguably more accurate too, since the effect
on the stack locations is unspecified rather than predictable.

Thanks,
Richard

Reply via email to