[Bug target/99249] SVE: ICE in aarch64_expand_sve_const_vector (during RTL pass: early_remat)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99249 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |10.3 Last reconfirmed||2021-02-24 --- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Confirmed on the 10 branch as well.
[Bug target/99249] SVE: ICE in aarch64_expand_sve_const_vector (during RTL pass: early_remat)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99249 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.3|10.4 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- GCC 10.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.4.
[Bug target/99249] SVE: ICE in aarch64_expand_sve_const_vector (during RTL pass: early_remat)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99249 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Mine.
[Bug target/99249] SVE: ICE in aarch64_expand_sve_const_vector (during RTL pass: early_remat)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99249 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed by https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=a065e0bb092a010664777394530ab1a52bb5293b, but I typoed the PR number.
[Bug target/99249] SVE: ICE in aarch64_expand_sve_const_vector (during RTL pass: early_remat)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99249 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Summary|[8/9 Backport] SVE: ICE in |SVE: ICE in |aarch64_expand_sve_const_ve |aarch64_expand_sve_const_ve |ctor (during RTL pass: |ctor (during RTL pass: |early_remat)|early_remat) --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- I was going to backport this further than GCC 10, but it turns out that the code changed too much in the GCC 9->GCC 10 timeframe for it to apply cleanly. I'm also not aware of any way of triggering the bug before GCC 10.