diff mbox series

, Fix PR target/85424, PowerPC __builtin_packlongdouble bug discovered in PR target/85075

Message ID 20180416191425.GA26180@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org
State New
Headers show
Series , Fix PR target/85424, PowerPC __builtin_packlongdouble bug discovered in PR target/85075 | expand

Commit Message

Michael Meissner April 16, 2018, 7:14 p.m. UTC 
With the code changes in the patch for PR target/85075, I noticed that the
PowerPC big-endian build stopped in building big endian, 32-bit libgcc when
configured for power8.  The issue was this latent bug.  Segher asked me to
re-submit the bug separately, and I'm doing this for PR target/85424.

This is the patch that I did in PR target/85075.  For that set, I did bootstrap
builds for big endian power7 and little endian power8 (along with a previous
build on a big endian power8 system).

This patch will need to be back ported to GCC 7.  I suspect that it may not be
needed in GCC 6, since that revision used RELOAD instead of LRA.  But given it
is hard to replicate the bug, I will also back port it to GCC 6.

Can I apply this to GCC 8, and after a waiting period, apply it to GCC 7 and
GCC 6?

2018-04-15  Michael Meissner  <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

	PR target/85424
	* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (pack<mode>): Do not try handle a pack
	where the inputs overlap with the output.

Comments

Segher Boessenkool April 16, 2018, 9:41 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:14:25PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> With the code changes in the patch for PR target/85075, I noticed that the
> PowerPC big-endian build stopped in building big endian, 32-bit libgcc when
> configured for power8.  The issue was this latent bug.  Segher asked me to
> re-submit the bug separately, and I'm doing this for PR target/85424.
> 
> This is the patch that I did in PR target/85075.  For that set, I did bootstrap
> builds for big endian power7 and little endian power8 (along with a previous
> build on a big endian power8 system).
> 
> This patch will need to be back ported to GCC 7.  I suspect that it may not be
> needed in GCC 6, since that revision used RELOAD instead of LRA.  But given it
> is hard to replicate the bug, I will also back port it to GCC 6.
> 
> Can I apply this to GCC 8, and after a waiting period, apply it to GCC 7 and
> GCC 6?

This looks fine.  Yes please.  Thanks!


Segher


> 2018-04-15  Michael Meissner  <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 	PR target/85424
> 	* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (pack<mode>): Do not try handle a pack
> 	where the inputs overlap with the output.
diff mbox series

Patch

Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md	(revision 259376)
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md	(working copy)
@@ -13934,16 +13934,14 @@  (define_insn_and_split "unpack<mode>_nod
    (set_attr "length" "4")])
 
 (define_insn_and_split "pack<mode>"
-  [(set (match_operand:FMOVE128 0 "register_operand" "=d,&d")
+  [(set (match_operand:FMOVE128 0 "register_operand" "=&d")
 	(unspec:FMOVE128
-	 [(match_operand:<FP128_64> 1 "register_operand" "0,d")
-	  (match_operand:<FP128_64> 2 "register_operand" "d,d")]
+	 [(match_operand:<FP128_64> 1 "register_operand" "d")
+	  (match_operand:<FP128_64> 2 "register_operand" "d")]
 	 UNSPEC_PACK_128BIT))]
   "FLOAT128_2REG_P (<MODE>mode)"
-  "@
-   fmr %L0,%2
-   #"
-  "&& reload_completed && REGNO (operands[0]) != REGNO (operands[1])"
+  "#"
+  "&& reload_completed"
   [(set (match_dup 3) (match_dup 1))
    (set (match_dup 4) (match_dup 2))]
 {
@@ -13956,8 +13954,8 @@  (define_insn_and_split "pack<mode>"
   operands[3] = gen_rtx_REG (<FP128_64>mode, dest_hi);
   operands[4] = gen_rtx_REG (<FP128_64>mode, dest_lo);
 }
-  [(set_attr "type" "fpsimple,fp")
-   (set_attr "length" "4,8")])
+  [(set_attr "type" "fp")
+   (set_attr "length" "8")])
 
 (define_insn "unpack<mode>"
   [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=wa,wa")