| Message ID | 58AC0F20.4080404@foss.arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 21/02/17 08:56, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > > > > On 21/02/17 08:43, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Prathamesh, > > > > > > > > > > On 16/02/17 12:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > The attached patch handles fma_expr in gimple-fe. > > > > > > Does it look OK ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Prathamesh > > > > > I see the new test ICEing on aarch64-none-elf. > > > > FMA_EXPR relies on either target support or library support so the > > > > testcase should be appropriately limited to targets supporting that. > > > > { target c99_runtime } maybe. > > > That does skip it on aarch64-none-elf, but is ICEing the expected > > > behaviour in > > > this case? > > > Shouldn't the frontend give an error message of some kind? > > Well, IMHO it's not the purpose of the FE to reject all invalid IL. We > > have verifiers for this. > > Ok, here's the patch to add the target selector. > Newlib doesn't implement fmal for long double I guess (it's the long double > fma that fails here). > Is this ok? Yes. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Kyrill > > 2016-02-21 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> > > * gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c: Require c99_runtime. > > > > > Or is the gimple frontend considered an internal feature and any errors in > > > input are expected > > > to cause an ICE? > > Yes, mostly. The FE itself shouldn't ICE. > > > > Richard. > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kyrill > > > > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Kyrill > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > $DIR/build-aarch64/obj/gcc2/gcc/xgcc > > > > > -B$DIR/build-aarch64/obj/gcc2/gcc/ > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c -fno-diagnos > > > > > tics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O -fgimple > > > > > -fdump-tree-ssa-gimple > > > > > -S -specs=aem-ve.specs -o gimplefe-26.s > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c: In function 'foo_3': > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c:5:18: internal compiler > > > > > error: > > > > > in > > > > > expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:8705 > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c:14:1: note: in expansion > > > > > of > > > > > macro > > > > > 'foo' > > > > > 0x84e7a3 expand_expr_real_2(separate_ops*, rtx_def*, machine_mode, > > > > > expand_modifier) > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/expr.c:8705 > > > > > 0x838bd6 expand_expr_real_1(tree_node*, rtx_def*, machine_mode, > > > > > expand_modifier, rtx_def**, bool) > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/expr.c:9730 > > > > > 0x83f0f5 expand_expr_real(tree_node*, rtx_def*, machine_mode, > > > > > expand_modifier, > > > > > rtx_def**, bool) > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/expr.c:8072 > > > > > 0x73ab2f expand_expr > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/expr.h:276 > > > > > 0x73ab2f expand_return > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3526 > > > > > 0x73ab2f expand_gimple_stmt_1 > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3610 > > > > > 0x73ab2f expand_gimple_stmt > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3737 > > > > > 0x73d55b expand_gimple_basic_block > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5744 > > > > > 0x740b14 execute > > > > > $DIR/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6357 > > > > > Please submit a full bug report, > > > > > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > > > > > Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. > > > > > See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c index 55a4624..bc2f3b1 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gimplefe-26.c @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-do compile { target c99_runtime } } */ /* { dg-options "-O -fgimple -fdump-tree-ssa-gimple" } */ #define foo(type, num) \