[Bug target/106919] [13 Regression] RTL check: expected code 'set' or 'clobber', have 'if_then_else' in s390_rtx_costs, at config/s390/s390.cc:3672on s390x-linux-gnu since r13-2251-g1930c5d05ceff2

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106919

--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed with:

diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
index 076c97a8b22..869847ab3d7 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
@@ -3669,7 +3669,7 @@ s390_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int outer_code,
                 slightly more expensive than a normal load.  */
              *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 2;

-             rtx dst = SET_DEST (src);
+             rtx dst = dest;
              rtx then = XEXP (src, 1);
              rtx els = XEXP (src, 2);

But I think the declaration of 'dest' should be removed:

diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
index 076c97a8b22..fa571c0190a 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
@@ -3648,7 +3648,7 @@ s390_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int outer_code,
       *total = 0;
       return true;
       case SET: {
-       rtx dest = SET_DEST (x);
+       rtx dst = SET_DEST (x);
        rtx src = SET_SRC (x);

        switch (GET_CODE (src))
@@ -3669,7 +3669,6 @@ s390_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int outer_code,
                 slightly more expensive than a normal load.  */
              *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 2;

-             rtx dst = SET_DEST (src);
              rtx then = XEXP (src, 1);
              rtx els = XEXP (src, 2);

@@ -3696,25 +3695,25 @@ s390_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int
outer_code,
            break;
          }

-       switch (GET_CODE (dest))
+       switch (GET_CODE (dst))
          {
          case SUBREG:
-           if (!REG_P (SUBREG_REG (dest)))
+           if (!REG_P (SUBREG_REG (dst)))
              *total += rtx_cost (SUBREG_REG (src), VOIDmode, SET, 0, speed);
            /* fallthrough */
          case REG:
            /* If this is a VR -> VR copy, count the number of
               registers.  */
-           if (VECTOR_MODE_P (GET_MODE (dest)) && REG_P (src))
+           if (VECTOR_MODE_P (GET_MODE (dst)) && REG_P (src))
              {
-               int nregs = s390_hard_regno_nregs (VR0_REGNUM, GET_MODE
(dest));
+               int nregs = s390_hard_regno_nregs (VR0_REGNUM, GET_MODE (dst));
                *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (nregs);
              }
            /* Same for GPRs.  */
            else if (REG_P (src))
              {
                int nregs
-                 = s390_hard_regno_nregs (GPR0_REGNUM, GET_MODE (dest));
+                 = s390_hard_regno_nregs (GPR0_REGNUM, GET_MODE (dst));
                *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (nregs);
              }
            else
@@ -3722,7 +3721,7 @@ s390_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int outer_code,
              *total += rtx_cost (src, mode, SET, 1, speed);
            return true;
            case MEM: {
-             rtx address = XEXP (dest, 0);
+             rtx address = XEXP (dst, 0);
              rtx tmp;
              long tmp2;
              if (s390_loadrelative_operand_p (address, &tmp, &tmp2))

@Robin: What do you think?