https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97502
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With
--- gcc/config/s390/vx-builtins.md.jj 2020-04-30 09:26:01.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/config/s390/vx-builtins.md 2020-10-20 16:08:31.847698827 +0200
@@ -812,6 +812,16 @@
DONE;
})
+(define_expand "vec_cmp<intcmp:code><VI_HW:mode><VI_HW:mode>"
+ [(set (match_operand:VI_HW 0 "register_operand" "=v")
+ (intcmp:VI_HW (match_operand:VI_HW 1 "register_operand" "v")
+ (match_operand:VI_HW 2 "register_operand" "v")))]
+ "TARGET_VX"
+{
+ s390_expand_vec_compare (operands[0], <intcmp:CODE>, operands[1],
operands[2]);
+ DONE;
+})
+
(define_expand "vec_cmp<fpcmp:code><mode>"
[(set (match_operand:<tointvec> 0 "register_operand" "=v")
(fpcmp:<tointvec> (match_operand:VF_HW 1 "register_operand" "v")
(couldn't just change the existing pattern easily as s390.c refers to the
current names) the testcase doesn't ICE anymore, but whether it does the right
thing is unclear. Anyway, deferring to s390x maintainers now.
