On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 09:39:54AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Okay, thanks! Is this better than bailing out though, do you have
> > an example?
>
> I don't, but I haven't bootstrapped/regtested with a patch to gather
> statistics on whether it would ever be successful (how? Should I note in
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 07:19:29PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:38:13PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The following testcase ICEs in wide-int*, but the reason is a mode mismatch
> > (we build a SImode MULT with one QImode argument and one VOIDmode argumen
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:38:13PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following testcase ICEs in wide-int*, but the reason is a mode mismatch
> (we build a SImode MULT with one QImode argument and one VOIDmode argument,
> then it is folded into SImode NEG with QImode argument, ...).
> The bug i
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs in wide-int*, but the reason is a mode mismatch
(we build a SImode MULT with one QImode argument and one VOIDmode argument,
then it is folded into SImode NEG with QImode argument, ...).
The bug is in assuming that the mode of c1 must be m, that is usually the
case,
