Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi!
>
> This patch restores the previous behavior, there could be many reasons why
> TYPE_MODE is BLKmode or some integral mode instead of a vector mode,
> unsupported vector mode, lack of available registers etc.
Fow the record, I think the assert was valid and I'd have preferred it
if we'd fixed the targets so that they don't return bogus modes for
preferred_simd_mode. After all, it's the targets that decide which
vector modes are supported and what can go in registers.
So IMO the assert simply exposed a genuine target bug. I don't strongly
object though.
Thanks,
Richard
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk.
>
> 2019-11-19 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/92557
> * omp-low.c (omp_clause_aligned_alignment): Punt if TYPE_MODE is not
> vmode rather than asserting it always is.
>
> * gcc.dg/gomp/pr92557.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/omp-low.c.jj 2019-11-15 00:37:26.359069152 +0100
> +++ gcc/omp-low.c 2019-11-18 16:17:27.767714777 +0100
> @@ -4086,8 +4086,8 @@ omp_clause_aligned_alignment (tree claus
> if (type == NULL_TREE || TYPE_MODE (type) != mode)
> continue;
> type = build_vector_type_for_mode (type, vmode);
> - /* The functions above are not allowed to return invalid modes. */
> - gcc_assert (TYPE_MODE (type) == vmode);
> + if (TYPE_MODE (type) != vmode)
> + continue;
> if (TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (type) > al)
> al = TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (type);
> }
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gomp/pr92557.c.jj 2019-11-18 16:18:18.246961685
> +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gomp/pr92557.c 2019-11-18 16:19:21.531017555
> +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/92557 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-additional-options "-maltivec" { target powerpc*-*-* } } */
> +
> +void
> +foo (double *p)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> +#pragma omp simd aligned (p)
> + for (i = 0; i < 1; ++i)
> + p[i] = 7.0;
> +}
>
> Jakub
