> The root cause is this following RTL pattern, after fwprop1:
>
> (insn 82 78 84 9 (set (reg:DI 230)
> (sign_extend:DI (minus:SI (subreg/s/v:SI (reg:DI 150 [ niters.10 ]) 0)
> (subreg:SI (reg:DI 221) 0)))) 13 {subsi3_extended}
> (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (sign_extend:DI (plus:SI (subreg/s/v:SI (reg:DI 150
> [ niters.10 ]) 0)
> *(const_poly_int:SI [-16, -16])*))
> (nil)))
>
> The highlight *(const_poly_int:SI [-16, -16])*
> causes ICE.
>
> This RTL is because:
> (insn 69 68 71 8 (set (reg:DI 221)
> (const_poly_int:DI [16, 16])) 208 {*movdi_64bit}
> (nil))
> (insn 82 78 84 9 (set (reg:DI 230)
> (sign_extend:DI (minus:SI (subreg/s/v:SI (reg:DI 150 [ niters.10 ]) 0)
> (subreg:SI (reg:DI 221) 0)))) 13 {subsi3_extended}
> ----> (subreg:SI (const_poly_int:SI [-16,
> -16])) fwprop1 add (const_poly_int:SI [-16, -16]) reg_equal
> (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (sign_extend:DI (plus:SI (subreg/s/v:SI (reg:DI 150
> [ niters.10 ]) 0)
> (const_poly_int:SI [-16, -16])))
> (nil)))
I'm seeing a slightly different pattern but that doesn't change
the problem.
> (set (reg:SI) (subreg:SI (DI: poly value))) but it causes ICE that I
> mentioned above.
That's indeed a bit more idiomatic and I wouldn't oppose that.
The problem causing the ICE is that we want to simplify a PLUS
with (const_poly_int:SI [16, 16]) and (const_int 0) but the mode
is DImode. My suspicion is that this is caused by our
addsi3_extended pattern and we fail to deduce the proper mode
for analysis.
I'm just speculating but maybe that's because we assert that a
plus is of the form simple_reg_p (op0) && CONSTANT_P (op1).
Usually, constants don't have a mode and can just be used.
poly_int_csts do have one and need to be explicitly converted
(kind of).
We can only analyze this zero_extended plus at all since Jeff
added the addsi3_extended handling for loop-iv. Maybe we could
punt like
diff --git a/gcc/loop-iv.cc b/gcc/loop-iv.cc
index eb7e923a38b..796413c25a3 100644
--- a/gcc/loop-iv.cc
+++ b/gcc/loop-iv.cc
@@ -714,6 +714,9 @@ get_biv_step_1 (df_ref def, scalar_int_mode outer_mode, rtx
reg,
if (!simple_reg_p (op0) || !CONSTANT_P (op1))
return false;
+ if (CONST_POLY_INT_P (op1) && GET_MODE (op1) != outer_mode)
+ return false;
+
This helps for your test case but I haven't done any further
testing. I'd think this is relatively safe because it's only
a missed analysis/optimization in the worst case.
Still, generally, I don't see a reason why we wouldn't be able
to analyze this?
Regards
Robin
