public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
@ 2003-06-01 11:16 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-01 11:17 ` [Bug target/11052] " debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (14 more replies)
0 siblings, 15 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org @ 2003-06-01 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
Summary: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P1
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
CC: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
GCC host triplet: arm-linux
This is a regression from 2.95 and 3.2; works with HEAD 20030531. Compiling
with -O1 makes the ICE go away.
gcc -c -fsigned-char -I../.. -I../../exports/include -Dlinux -D__arm__
-D__arm32__ -U__arm -Uarm -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=199309L -D_POSIX_SOURCE
-D_XOPEN_SOURCE -D_BSD_SOURCE -D_SVID_SOURCE -D_GNU_SOURCE -DFUNCPROTO=15
-DNARROWPROTO -DXTHREADS -D_REENTRANT -DXUSE_MTSAFE_API
-DMALLOC_0_RETURNS_NULL -DHAS_SNPRINTF -DLIBX11 -g -O2 -g Xrm.c -o
unshared/Xrm.o
Xrm.c: In function `GetDatabase':
Xrm.c:1522: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
make[5]: *** [Xrm.o] Error 1
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
@ 2003-06-01 11:17 ` debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-02 1:00 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org @ 2003-06-01 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From debian-gcc@lists.debian.org 2003-06-01 11:17 -------
Created an attachment (id=4122)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4122&action=view)
preprocessed source
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-01 11:17 ` [Bug target/11052] " debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
@ 2003-06-02 1:00 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-02 10:18 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-06-02 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-01 11:17 ` [Bug target/11052] " debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-02 1:00 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-06-02 10:18 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02 10:19 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-02 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-06-02 10:18 -------
Created an attachment (id=4135)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4135&action=view)
reduced testcase.i
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 10:18 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-06-02 10:19 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02 14:44 ` bangerth@dealii.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-02 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
GCC build triplet| |arm-linux
GCC target triplet| |arm-linux
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-06-02 10:19:14
date| |
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-06-02 10:19 -------
Confirmed with gcc 3.3 branch (20030531). Note that this problem does not occur on arm-elf... I
have somewhat reduced the testcase, and included it. I've verified that the backtrace of the crash
of the new testcase is the same to that of the old one (well, almost completely the same). Looks
like move2add_note_store is getting passed NULL data from note_stores, and that in turn is
getting NULL data from reload_cse_move2add. Hope this information is helpful to someone :-)
Dara
Backtrace:
0x00237b9c in move2add_note_store (dst=0xe7b0c0, set=0xe79654, data=0x0) at
reload1.c:9293
9293 reg_set_luid[REGNO (XEXP (dst, 0))] = 0;
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00237b9c in move2add_note_store (dst=0xe7b0c0, set=0xe79654, data=0x0) at
reload1.c:9293
#1 0x001c6afc in note_stores (x=0xe79654, fun=0x237a64 <move2add_note_store>, data=0x0)
at rtlanal.c:1637
#2 0x002379b0 in reload_cse_move2add (first=0xe2b8f0) at reload1.c:9249
#3 0x00233c28 in reload_cse_regs (first=0xe2b8f0) at reload1.c:8154
#4 0x000b0ecc in rest_of_compilation (decl=0xe62620) at toplev.c:3335
#5 0x00020670 in c_expand_body (fndecl=0xe62620, nested_p=0, can_defer_p=1) at c-
decl.c:6567
#6 0x00020250 in finish_function (nested=0, can_defer_p=1) at c-decl.c:6407
#7 0x00003bf4 in yyparse () at c-parse.y:403
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 10:19 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-06-02 14:44 ` bangerth@dealii.org
2003-06-02 17:09 ` rearnsha@arm.com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bangerth@dealii.org @ 2003-06-02 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
bangerth@dealii.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4 |3.3.1
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 14:44 ` bangerth@dealii.org
@ 2003-06-02 17:09 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-02 17:34 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha@arm.com @ 2003-06-02 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha@arm.com 2003-06-02 17:09 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
Bizzare. Your analysis does not match mine at all (though I am getting a
segfault).
Firstly, I get this on arm-elf as well as on arm-linux (but not if I have
-mcpu=strongarm on the options list).
What I am seeing happening is that we have the construct
int quarks[100 + 1];
register int num_quarks;
num_quarks = 0;
for(;;) {
quarks[num_quarks++] = something;
}
And this is being transformed into (roughly):
int quarks[100 + 1];
int *q_ptr = quarks;
for (;;) {
*q_ptr++ = something;
}
Or, in rtl:
(insn 193 23 30 0 (nil) (set (reg/v/f:SI 39)
(reg/f:SI 73)) 175 {*arm_movsi_insn} (insn_list 23 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 25 sfp)
(const_int -9000 [0xffffdcd8]))
(nil)))
...
(insn 94 162 95 6 0x4001d7bc (set (mem:SI (pre_inc:SI (reg/v/f:SI 39)) [8
S4 A32
])
(reg:SI 54)) 175 {*arm_movsi_insn} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_INC (reg/v/f:SI 39)
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 54)
(nil))))
Now during local register allocation that REG_EQUAL note on insn 193 is
being transformed into a REQ_EQUIV (which implies that 39 never changes).
So when reload fails to allocate a register to reg 39 it simply substitues
in the equiv expression. That leaves us with a post_inc of something that
isn't a register and has no stack equivalent.
(insn:HI 211 210 103 5 0x401d52ec (set (mem:SI (pre_inc:SI (plus:SI
(reg/f:SI 11 fp)
(const_int -9040 [0xffffdcb0]))) [8 S4 A32])
(reg:SI 3 r3 [93])) 124 {*arm_movsi_insn} (insn_list 210 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 3 r3 [93])
(expr_list:REG_INC (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
(const_int -9040 [0xffffdcb0]))
(nil))))
We then get confused in a later pass when we try to kill an auto-inc value
because an auto-inc should never apply to anything other than a register.
I need to look into this further, but it appears that REG_N_SETS hasn't
taken into account the auto_inc operation ;-(
R.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 17:09 ` rearnsha@arm.com
@ 2003-06-02 17:34 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-03 12:25 ` rearnsha@arm.com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-02 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-06-02 17:34 -------
Well, you're the ARM maintainer, so I suspect your analysis is much closer... Also could be because
I'm using cross compilers (sorry, very important details)...
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 17:34 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-06-03 12:25 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-03 15:13 ` rearnsha@arm.com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha@arm.com @ 2003-06-03 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha@arm.com 2003-06-03 12:25 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
> Well, you're the ARM maintainer, so I suspect your analysis is much closer... Also could be because
> I'm using cross compilers (sorry, very important details)...
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I'm not seeing what you are
seeing. Which concerns me somewhat. And I was using a cross-compiler
too...
Is there any chance you could have another look at the failure you are
seeing and tell me what the "insn" is in frame 2
#2 0x002379b0 in reload_cse_move2add (first=0xe2b8f0) at reload1.c:9249
reload.c:9249: note_stores (PATTERN (insn), move2add_note_store, NULL);
R.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-03 12:25 ` rearnsha@arm.com
@ 2003-06-03 15:13 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-03 16:12 ` [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes rth@redhat.com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha@arm.com @ 2003-06-03 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha@arm.com 2003-06-03 15:13 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
rearnsha@arm.com said:
> I need to look into this further, but it appears that REG_N_SETS
> hasn't taken into account the auto_inc operation ;-(
The key to this is that if-then-else conversion has dropped a REG_INC
note. Prior to conversion we had the following code paths
+-----------+
| cmp x, y |
+-----------+
/ \
+-----------+ +-----------+
| t1 = 1 | | t2 = 0 |
| *++p = t1 | | *++p = t2 |
+-----------+ +-----------+
\ /
+-----------+
| ... |
+-----------+
If-then-else conversion is converting this to
cmp x, y
t3 = cond ? 1 : 0
*++p = t3
In doing so it generates a new insn for the assignment, but fails to copy
the REG_INC note. Thus when mark_set_regs is called to update the reg
life info it fails to note that p is updated. This then causes p to be
considered a constant and as a final consequence for p to be entirely
eliminated (by reload) into a frame address.
This all starts to go wrong in noce_process_if_block. It seems to me that
there are three possibilities.
1) Don't allow this transformation if the insns have REG_INC notes (this
is overkill, but safe).
2) Copy any REG_INC notes from *one* of the source insns.
3) Something else I've not thought of... :-)
Richard, any thoughts?
R.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-03 15:13 ` rearnsha@arm.com
@ 2003-06-03 16:12 ` rth@redhat.com
2003-06-03 16:52 ` rearnsha@arm.com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rth@redhat.com @ 2003-06-03 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From rth@redhat.com 2003-06-03 16:12 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:13:09PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 1) Don't allow this transformation if the insns have REG_INC notes (this
> is overkill, but safe).
This I'd recommend for 3.3, if it's affected.
> 2) Copy any REG_INC notes from *one* of the source insns.
This shouldn't be hard, I wouldn't expect.
> 3) Something else I've not thought of... :-)
Build a new REG_INC note after scanning for autoinc codes?
r~
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-03 16:12 ` [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes rth@redhat.com
@ 2003-06-03 16:52 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-03 17:52 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha@arm.com @ 2003-06-03 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha@arm.com 2003-06-03 16:52 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:13:09PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > 1) Don't allow this transformation if the insns have REG_INC notes (this
> > is overkill, but safe).
>
> This I'd recommend for 3.3, if it's affected.
>
> > 2) Copy any REG_INC notes from *one* of the source insns.
>
> This shouldn't be hard, I wouldn't expect.
>
> > 3) Something else I've not thought of... :-)
>
> Build a new REG_INC note after scanning for autoinc codes?
>
Is it guaranteed that noce_emit_move_insn will emit exactly one insn?
R.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-03 16:52 ` rearnsha@arm.com
@ 2003-06-03 17:52 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-03 22:24 ` rth@redhat.com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-03 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-06-03 17:52 -------
Richard,
you're right, I do get the failure on arm-elf now. I'm not sure why I didn't before. If you still need
the info in frame 2, I can dig it up (with some minimal instructions, I'm quite new to gdb)...
Dara
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-03 17:52 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-06-03 22:24 ` rth@redhat.com
2003-06-06 17:45 ` rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-17 15:58 ` drow@mvista.com
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rth@redhat.com @ 2003-06-03 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From rth@redhat.com 2003-06-03 22:24 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:52:16PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Is it guaranteed that noce_emit_move_insn will emit exactly one insn?
No.
r~
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-03 22:24 ` rth@redhat.com
@ 2003-06-06 17:45 ` rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-17 15:58 ` drow@mvista.com
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-06 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rearnsha@arm.com
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org 2003-06-06 17:45 -------
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-06 17:45 ` rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-06-17 15:58 ` drow@mvista.com
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: drow@mvista.com @ 2003-06-17 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From drow@mvista.com 2003-06-17 15:58 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes
Yes, it looks like your patch fixed the test case. Thanks!
Before I write it off as closed, do you have any comments on this bit:
> It was then broken again in HEAD by:
> Wed Jan 8 12:10:57 CET 2003 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
>
> * i386.md (adddi3_carry_rex64, subdi3_carry_rex64): Name pattern.
> (addhi3_carry, addqi3_carry, subhi3_carry, subqi3_carry): New patterns.
> (add??cc): New expanders.
> * i386.c (expand_int_addcc): New function.
> * i386-protos.h (expand_int_addcc): Declare.
>
> * alias.c (memory_modified_1): New static function.
> (memory_modified): New static varaible.
> (memory_modified_in_insn_p): New global function.
> * rtl.h (memory_modified_in_insn_p): Declare.
> * rtlanal.c (modified_between_p, modified_in_p): Be smart about memory
> references.
>
> * expr.h (emit_conditional_add): Declare.
I'm not sure, but I think that modified_between_p and modified_in_p are
going to have to have POST_INC (POST_DEC, PRE_INC, PRE_DEC) cases in
them for the above patch from Jan to be safe.
I'd hate for it to come back and bite me later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-06-17 15:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-01 11:16 [Bug target/11052] New: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-01 11:17 ` [Bug target/11052] " debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
2003-06-02 1:00 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-02 10:18 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02 10:19 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02 14:44 ` bangerth@dealii.org
2003-06-02 17:09 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-02 17:34 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-03 12:25 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-03 15:13 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-03 16:12 ` [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes rth@redhat.com
2003-06-03 16:52 ` rearnsha@arm.com
2003-06-03 17:52 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-03 22:24 ` rth@redhat.com
2003-06-06 17:45 ` rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-17 15:58 ` drow@mvista.com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).