| Message ID | 1328754874.3164.13.camel@otta |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 20:34 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > The following patch fixes an ICE when we try and generate a compare of > decimal float variables when we are not compiling for a cpu with dfp > hardware support. This is a regression from gcc 4.4. The patch below > bootstrapped and regression tested with no regressions on trunk, 4.6 > and 4.5. Is this ok everywhere? Sorry for replying to my own message, but I meant to say this was bootstrapped and regression tested on powerpc64-linux and running the test suite in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes. Peter
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > The following patch fixes an ICE when we try and generate a compare of > decimal float variables when we are not compiling for a cpu with dfp > hardware support. This is a regression from gcc 4.4. The patch below > bootstrapped and regression tested with no regressions on trunk, 4.6 > and 4.5. Is this ok everywhere? > > I'll note that there seem to be a few other places that need this change, > but they aren't needed to fix this ICE, so I left them for a 4.8. cleanup. Ok. Thanks, Richard. > Peter > > > gcc/ > PR middle-end/52140 > * dojump.c (do_compare_rtx_and_jump): Use SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P. > > gcc/testsuite/ > PR middle-end/52140 > * gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c: New test. > > Index: gcc/dojump.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/dojump.c (revision 184032) > +++ gcc/dojump.c (working copy) > @@ -1049,7 +1049,7 @@ do_compare_rtx_and_jump (rtx op0, rtx op > } > else > { > - if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) == MODE_FLOAT > + if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) > && ! can_compare_p (code, mode, ccp_jump) > && can_compare_p (swap_condition (code), mode, ccp_jump)) > { > @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ do_compare_rtx_and_jump (rtx op0, rtx op > op1 = tmp; > } > > - else if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) == MODE_FLOAT > + else if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) > && ! can_compare_p (code, mode, ccp_jump) > > /* Never split ORDERED and UNORDERED. These must be implemented. */ > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c (revision 0) > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c (revision 0) > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O1" } */ > + > +/* This used to result in an ICE. */ > + > +int > +foo (_Decimal64 x, _Decimal64 y) > +{ > + return (x < y) || (x > y); > +} > >
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 11:31 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > The following patch fixes an ICE when we try and generate a compare of > > decimal float variables when we are not compiling for a cpu with dfp > > hardware support. This is a regression from gcc 4.4. The patch below > > bootstrapped and regression tested with no regressions on trunk, 4.6 > > and 4.5. Is this ok everywhere? > > Ok. Committed on trunk and both branches. Thanks. Peter
Index: gcc/dojump.c =================================================================== --- gcc/dojump.c (revision 184032) +++ gcc/dojump.c (working copy) @@ -1049,7 +1049,7 @@ do_compare_rtx_and_jump (rtx op0, rtx op } else { - if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) == MODE_FLOAT + if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) && ! can_compare_p (code, mode, ccp_jump) && can_compare_p (swap_condition (code), mode, ccp_jump)) { @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ do_compare_rtx_and_jump (rtx op0, rtx op op1 = tmp; } - else if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) == MODE_FLOAT + else if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (mode) && ! can_compare_p (code, mode, ccp_jump) /* Never split ORDERED and UNORDERED. These must be implemented. */ Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c (revision 0) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dfp/pr52140.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-O1" } */ + +/* This used to result in an ICE. */ + +int +foo (_Decimal64 x, _Decimal64 y) +{ + return (x < y) || (x > y); +}