On 6/5/23 22:51, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
When building riscv32-none-elf with "--enable-checking=yes,rtl", the
following ICE is observed:

   cc1: internal compiler error: RTL check: expected code 'const_int', have 
'const_double' in riscv_const_insns, at config/riscv/riscv.cc:1313
   0x843c4d rtl_check_failed_code1(rtx_def const*, rtx_code, char const*, int, 
char const*)
           /mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/rtl.cc:916
   0x8eab61 riscv_const_insns(rtx_def*)
           /mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc:1313
   0x15443bb riscv_legitimate_constant_p
           /mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc:826
   0xdd3c71 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
           /mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/expr.cc:4310
   0x15f28e5 run_const_vector_selftests
           
/mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-selftests.cc:285
   0x15f37bd selftest::riscv_run_selftests()
           
/mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-selftests.cc:364
   0x1f6fba9 selftest::run_tests()
           /mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/selftest-run-tests.cc:111
   0x11d1f39 toplev::run_self_tests()
           /mnt/nvme/dinux/local-workspace/gcc/gcc/toplev.cc:2185

Fix by following the spirit of the adjacent comment, and using the
dedicated riscv_const_insns() function to calculate cost for loading a
constant element.  Infinite recursion is not possible because the first
invocation is on a CONST_VECTOR, whereas the second is on a single
element of the vector (e.g. CONST_INT or CONST_DOUBLE).

Regression tested for riscv32-none-elf. No changes in gcc.sum and
g++.sum.  I don't have setup to test riscv64.
I think most folks are using QEMU to test. Though I think most are doing it in a rv64 environment.


gcc/ChangeLog:

        * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_const_insns): Recursively call
        for constant element of a vector.
OK for the trunk. I don't think this code is in gcc-13, but also OK as a backport if I'm wrong and it is in gcc-13.

jeff

Reply via email to