On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:45:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:43:13PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > If the predicates are supposed to ensure it, then I think the assert is
> > > fine.
> >
> > Is it guaranteed that the predicate conditions are evaluated
> > before executing the conditions?
>
> Yes. You can see it in insn-recog.c...
Updated patch attached.
changes:
* Don't remove assertion.
* Use simplified test case.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on a zEC12 with s390x biarch
and s390.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
gcc/ChangeLog-pr79240
PR target/79240
* config/s390/s390.md ("*r<noxa>sbg_<mode>_srl_bitmask")
("*r<noxa>sbg_<mode>_sll_bitmask")
("*extzv_<mode>_srl<clobbercc_or_nocc>")
("*extzv_<mode>_sll<clobbercc_or_nocc>"):
Use contiguous_bitmask_nowrap_operand
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog-pr79240
PR target/79240
* gcc.target/s390/pr79240.c: New test.
>From 374de8083a8d47452f7b66ee8122be4d677108de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:50:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] S/390: PR target/79240: Fix assertion in
s390_extzv_shift_ok.
---
gcc/config/s390/s390.md | 8 ++++----
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/pr79240.c | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/pr79240.c
diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.md b/gcc/config/s390/s390.md
index 3135175..e47c2e9 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.md
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.md
@@ -4127,7 +4127,7 @@
(lshiftrt:GPR
(match_operand:GPR 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "d")
(match_operand:GPR 3 "nonzero_shift_count_operand" ""))
- (match_operand:GPR 2 "contiguous_bitmask_operand" ""))
+ (match_operand:GPR 2 "contiguous_bitmask_nowrap_operand" ""))
(match_operand:GPR 4 "nonimmediate_operand" "0")))
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
"TARGET_Z10
@@ -4143,7 +4143,7 @@
(ashift:GPR
(match_operand:GPR 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "d")
(match_operand:GPR 3 "nonzero_shift_count_operand" ""))
- (match_operand:GPR 2 "contiguous_bitmask_operand" ""))
+ (match_operand:GPR 2 "contiguous_bitmask_nowrap_operand" ""))
(match_operand:GPR 4 "nonimmediate_operand" "0")))
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
"TARGET_Z10
@@ -7191,7 +7191,7 @@
(and:GPR (lshiftrt:GPR
(match_operand:GPR 1 "register_operand" "d")
(match_operand:GPR 2 "nonzero_shift_count_operand" ""))
- (match_operand:GPR 3 "contiguous_bitmask_operand" "")))]
+ (match_operand:GPR 3 "contiguous_bitmask_nowrap_operand" "")))]
"<z10_or_zEC12_cond>
/* Note that even for the SImode pattern, the rotate is always DImode. */
&& s390_extzv_shift_ok (<bitsize>, -INTVAL (operands[2]),
@@ -7205,7 +7205,7 @@
(and:GPR (ashift:GPR
(match_operand:GPR 1 "register_operand" "d")
(match_operand:GPR 2 "nonzero_shift_count_operand" ""))
- (match_operand:GPR 3 "contiguous_bitmask_operand" "")))]
+ (match_operand:GPR 3 "contiguous_bitmask_nowrap_operand" "")))]
"<z10_or_zEC12_cond>
&& s390_extzv_shift_ok (<bitsize>, INTVAL (operands[2]),
INTVAL (operands[3]))"
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/pr79240.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/pr79240.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bd8f72f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/pr79240.c
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* This testcase checks that s390_extzv_shift_ok does not cause an assertion
+ failure. */
+
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-w -march=z196 -mtune=zEC12 -m64 -mzarch -O2" } */
+
+int
+foo (int a)
+{
+ return sizeof (int) * a + 16 - a * sizeof (int) % 16;
+}
--
2.3.0
