On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:23:47PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Though, following patch is just fine for me too, I don't think it will
> > make a significant difference:
>
> This version is fine by me.
Richard, are you ok with that too?
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux now.
2014-11-20 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR target/63910
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_immed_subreg): Return NULL for integer
modes wider than MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT. If not using
CONST_WIDE_INT, make sure r fits into CONST_DOUBLE.
* gcc.target/i386/pr63910.c: New test.
--- gcc/simplify-rtx.c.jj 2014-11-19 09:17:15.491327992 +0100
+++ gcc/simplify-rtx.c 2014-11-19 12:28:16.223808178 +0100
@@ -5504,6 +5504,8 @@ simplify_immed_subreg (machine_mode oute
HOST_WIDE_INT tmp[MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT /
HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT];
wide_int r;
+ if (GET_MODE_PRECISION (outer_submode) > MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT)
+ return NULL_RTX;
for (u = 0; u < units; u++)
{
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT buf = 0;
@@ -5515,10 +5517,13 @@ simplify_immed_subreg (machine_mode oute
tmp[u] = buf;
base += HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT;
}
- gcc_assert (GET_MODE_PRECISION (outer_submode)
- <= MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT);
r = wide_int::from_array (tmp, units,
GET_MODE_PRECISION (outer_submode));
+#if TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT == 0
+ /* Make sure r will fit into CONST_INT or CONST_DOUBLE. */
+ if (wi::min_precision (r, SIGNED) > HOST_BITS_PER_DOUBLE_INT)
+ return NULL_RTX;
+#endif
elems[elem] = immed_wide_int_const (r, outer_submode);
}
break;
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr63910.c.jj 2014-11-19 12:04:23.490489130
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr63910.c 2014-11-19 12:04:23.490489130
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* PR target/63910 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -mstringop-strategy=vector_loop -mavx512f" } */
+
+extern void bar (float *c);
+
+void
+foo (void)
+{
+ float c[1024] = { };
+ bar (c);
+}
Jakub
