Bug#168086: target/9090: arm ICE with >= -O2; regression from 2.95
- To: 168086@bugs.debian.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, james@nocrew.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
- Subject: Bug#168086: target/9090: arm ICE with >= -O2; regression from 2.95
- From: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org
- Date: 11 Jan 2003 17:04:58 -0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030111170458.4472.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
- Reply-to: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org, 168086@bugs.debian.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, james@nocrew.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, 168086@bugs.debian.org
Synopsis: arm ICE with >= -O2; regression from 2.95
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: rearnsha
State-Changed-When: Sat Jan 11 09:04:58 2003
State-Changed-Why:
The cause of PR 9090 comes from the fact that when we have
(insn 127 126 128 1 0x40c653c8 (set (reg:SI 1 r1)
(reg:SI 59)) 161 {*arm_movsi_insn} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (addressof:SI (reg/v:DI 56) 55 0x40aa48c0)
(nil)))
purge_addressof_1, when applied to the notes fails to purge the address,
instead giving just
(insn 127 126 128 1 0x40c653c8 (set (reg:SI 1 r1)
(reg:SI 59)) 161 {*arm_movsi_insn} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (addressof:SI (mem/s:DI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 25 sfp)
(const_int -16 [0xfffffff0])) [14 S8 A32]) 55
0x40aa48c0)
That is, it's pushed the referenced register onto the stack, but then
failed to simplify the resulting addressof expression. However, the patch
seems so simple that I'm concerned that I've missed somthing obvious.
Would someone care to comment?
No regressions shown by an arm-elf cross build.
<date> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
* function.c (purge_addressof_1): After pushing an addressed register
onto the stack, simplify the result.
2. addressof.patch (text/x-patch)
This is a text/x-patch
It might be displayable with metamail. (Invoke menu with right button.)
Index: function.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/function.c,v
retrieving revision 1.392
diff -p -r1.392 function.c
*** function.c 10 Jan 2003 02:22:01 -0000 1.392
--- function.c 11 Jan 2003 16:57:16 -0000
*************** purge_addressof_1 (loc, insn, force, sto
*** 3007,3016 ****
rtx sub, insns;
if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) != MEM)
! {
! put_addressof_into_stack (x, ht);
! return true;
! }
/* We must create a copy of the rtx because it was created by
overwriting a REG rtx which is always shared. */
--- 3007,3013 ----
rtx sub, insns;
if (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) != MEM)
! put_addressof_into_stack (x, ht);
/* We must create a copy of the rtx because it was created by
overwriting a REG rtx which is always shared. */
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9090
Reply to: