[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] New: [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] New: [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --]

$ gcc/xgcc -Bgcc/ -O2 -fpic -S memusage.i 
memusage.c: In function ‘me’:
memusage.c:311:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 342 136 137 10 memusage.c:253 (set (reg/f:SI 2 %d2 [137])
        (const:SI (unspec:SI [
                    (symbol_ref:SI ("start_sp") [flags 0x1a] <var_decl
0x40322ea0 start_sp>)
                    (const_int 2 [0x2])
                ] 6))) 36 {*movsi_m68k} (nil))
memusage.c:311:1: internal compiler error: in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at
postreload.c:396

Caused by:

commit e38def9ca7953bb5611d08ce8617249516ba5a99
Author: rth <rth@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date:   Mon Sep 14 19:18:58 2009 +0000

    Squash commit of EH in gimple

    git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@151696
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4

diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 75333c1..cc04831 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,343 @@
+2009-09-14  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>
+
+       * except.h: Update declarations.
+       (struct pointer_map_t): Forward declare.
+       (ERT_UNKNOWN, ERT_THROW, ERT_CATCH): Remove.


-- 
           Summary: [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: schwab at linux-m68k dot org
GCC target triplet: m68k-linux-*


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #1 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-19 20:13 -------
Created an attachment (id=20424)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20424&action=view)
Preprocessed testcase


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #2 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-19 20:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=20425)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20425&action=view)
Reduced testcase


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.5.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-21 10:47 -------
There are two problems here:
1. The immediate problem is that "movsi_m68k" doesn't allow (const) to be moved
to data register (see last alternative if movsi_m68k).

2. For reason, which I have not yet investigated, no alternative in
"addsi_internal" match
(set (reg) (plus (reg %a5) (const (unspec))))

Andreas, do you know why movsi_m68k doesn't allow data register in the last
alternative?

(define_insn "*movsi_m68k"
  [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=g,d,a<")
        (match_operand:SI 1 "general_src_operand" "damSnT,n,i"))]


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #4 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-21 13:22 -------
Introduced in r27576.  Presumably the first alternative is supposed to catch
this case, through T+g, but T does not match if flag_pic, contrary to its
documentation (introduced in r120961).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[maxim at codesourcery dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]



------- Comment #5 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-21 19:43 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

On 4/21/10 5:23 PM, schwab at linux-m68k dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #4 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-21 13:22 -------
> Introduced in r27576.  Presumably the first alternative is supposed to catch
> this case, through T+g, but T does not match if flag_pic, contrary to its
> documentation (introduced in r120961).

Documentation for "T" seems correct to me, assuming -mpcrel and -fpic 
are equivalent: "Operands that satisfy ’s’ (const, symbol_ref, ...) when 
-mpcrel is not in effect".

It is clear that constants with unknown at compile time values are not 
welcome in data registers, but I cannot guess why.  What can possibly be 
the difference between an arbitrary constant known at compile time (the 
"n" constraint) and a constant known at assembly / link time (the "i" 
constraint).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #6 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-21 22:51 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> assuming -mpcrel and -fpic are equivalent:

They aren't.  -mpcrel implies -fpic, but not the other way round.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #7 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-21 23:40 -------
I think 'T' should accept tls references like 's' does.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[maxim at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #8 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-22 07:09 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

On 4/22/10 3:40 AM, schwab at linux-m68k dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #7 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-21 23:40 -------
> I think 'T' should accept tls references like 's' does.

Do you mean the following?
==
(define_constraint "T"
   "Used for operands that satisfy 's' when -mpcrel is not in effect."
   (and (match_code "symbol_ref,label_ref,const")
        (match_test "!flag_pic || m68k_tls_reference_p (op, true)")))
==

Yes, that should fix this particular problem, but one could equally 
successfully argue that "T" then should then accept usual PIC GOT 
references too.

I just do not understand the background behind "T" constraint.  Sigh.

Maybe, it was introduced as an optimization to stop GCC from putting 
addresses (symbol_refs, etc) into data registers and then reloading them 
into address registers.  Most probably, current GCC register allocator 
will do a just that without this kind of manual tweaking on the backend 
side.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #9 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-04-22 09:20 -------
Probably the author of T didn't realise that !-mpcrel in (!-mpcrel && 's') is
already implied.  It is already a no-op in the -mpcrel case.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug rtl-optimization/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-23 10:20 -------
The problem seems to be in Richard's patch
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/130602) checked in r120961.

All and all, it seems that revision 120961 should be reverted to enable 'T'
constraint for (flag_pic && !TARGET_PCREL).

The 's' constraint is defined as
==
              case 's':
                if (CONST_INT_P (op)
                    || (GET_CODE (op) == CONST_DOUBLE
                        && GET_MODE (op) == VOIDmode))
                  break;
              case 'i':
                if (CONSTANT_P (op))
                  win = 1;
                break;
==

So, unless I'm missing something, the statement
"... 's' doesn't accept anything if flag_pic"
is just wrong.

FYI, the story behind 'T' constraint is described in comment in r27576:

+   In parallel with these new predicates, two new constraint letters
+   were defined: 'S' and 'T'.  'S' is the -mpcrel analog of 'm'.
+   'T' replaces 's' in the non-pcrel case.  It is a no-op in the pcrel case.
+   In the pcrel case 's' is only valid in combination with 'a' registers.
+   See addsi3, subsi3, cmpsi, and movsi patterns for a better understanding
+   of how these constraints are used.
+
...
+   All of the ugliness with predicates and constraints is due to the
+   simple fact that the m68k does not allow a pc-relative addressing
+   mode as a destination.  gcc does not distinguish between source and
+   destination addresses.  Hence, if we claim that pc-relative address
+   modes are valid, e.g. GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS accepts them, then we
+   end up with invalid code.  To get around this problem, we left
+   pc-relative modes as invalid addresses, and then added special
+   predicates and constraints to accept them.


-- 

mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rdsandiford at googlemail
                   |                            |dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-02 18:02 -------
Created an attachment (id=20536)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20536&action=view)
Revert previous patch


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-02 18:03 -------
Ping.

Richard S.,
Andreas,

Any comment on the above analysis?

AFAICT, the "T" constraint should accept operands if "flag_pic &&
!TARGET_PCREL".


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rdsandiford at googlemail dot com]

------- Comment #13 from rdsandiford at googlemail dot com  2010-05-03 09:53 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

"mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> ------- Comment #10 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-23 10:20 -------
> The problem seems to be in Richard's patch
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/130602) checked in r120961.
>
> All and all, it seems that revision 120961 should be reverted to enable 'T'
> constraint for (flag_pic && !TARGET_PCREL).
>
> The 's' constraint is defined as
> ==
>               case 's':
>                 if (CONST_INT_P (op)
>                     || (GET_CODE (op) == CONST_DOUBLE
>                         && GET_MODE (op) == VOIDmode))
>                   break;
>               case 'i':
>                 if (CONSTANT_P (op))
>                   win = 1;
>                 break;
> ==
>
> So, unless I'm missing something, the statement
> "... 's' doesn't accept anything if flag_pic"
> is just wrong.

I meant "flag_pic && !TARGET_PCREL", since only the !TARGET_PCREL case
matters for 'T'.  And that was right at the time that I wrote it.
The interesting definition of 's' isn't the one you quote, but the one
in reload:

              case 's':
                if (CONST_INT_P (operand)
                    || (GET_CODE (operand) == CONST_DOUBLE
                        && GET_MODE (operand) == VOIDmode))
                  break;
              case 'i':
                if (CONSTANT_P (operand)
                    && (! flag_pic || LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P (operand)))
                  win = 1;
                break;

That is, 's' operands have to satisfy LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P when
generating PIC.  I'm not sure which version you were quoting, but if it
was constrain_operands, that's a special case.  constrain_operands can
rely on the predicates to check for legitimate PIC operands, so there's
no need to repeat the check there.

At the time I committed the patch, LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P was
defined as follows:

#define LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P(X)                             \
  (!symbolic_operand (X, VOIDmode)                              \
   || (TARGET_PCREL && REG_STRICT_P))

Thus no symbolic constant was a legitimate PIC operand for
flag_pic && !TARGET_PCREL.  Thus nothing satisfied 's' when
flag_pic && !TARGET_PCREL.

The 'T' constraint is defined as follows:

  satisifies(T) == satisifies(s) && !TARGET_PCREL

so it followed that nothing should match 'T' when flag_pic.

So the patch was correct at the time it was committed.  Please
understand that reverting it is the wrong thing to do.  It would
reintroduce the original bug: that constraints _must not_ match
something that the associated predicates do not.  Only the other
way is allowed: predicates can allow things that the constraints
don't, within certain limits.

For example, let's say you have an insn that matches:

(define_insn "subsi3"
  [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=mda,m,d,a")
        (minus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "general_operand" "0,0,0,0")
                  (match_operand:SI 2 "general_src_operand"
"I,dT,mSrT,mSrs")))]
  ""
  "@
   subq%.l %2, %0
   sub%.l %2,%0
   sub%.l %2,%0
   sub%.l %2,%0"
  [(set_attr "type" "aluq_l,alu_l,alu_l,alu_l")
   (set_attr "opy" "2")])

And let's suppose that operand 2 is a register that is equal to:

  (symbol_ref "x")

If 'T' allows any CONST, SYMBOL_REF or LABEL_REF when flag_pic &&
!TARGET_PCREL (as in your suggested patch), reload could quite happily
establish that operand 2 is (symbol_ref "x"), see that it matches 'T',
and use it.  This will then lead to an unrecognisable insn, because
although the constant matches the 'T' constraint, it doesn't match
general_src_operand.

Instead, the bug is that the 'T' constraint wasn't updated by the TLS
support at the same time as LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P was.  An easy thing
to miss, of course.  I think the correct patch is the one I'm about
to attach.

Richard


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-03 09:55 -------
Created an attachment (id=20541)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20541&action=view)
proposed patch


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

------- Comment #15 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-05-03 20:17 -------
The patch is ok, please check it in.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-10 19:49 -------
Thanks Andreas.  I don't have access to m68k-elfy targets these days, so could
someone test it just to be sure?  I'll commit if everything goes OK.


-- 

rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-05-10 19:49:34
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-31 09:29 -------
GCC 4.5.1 is being released, adjusting target milestone.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.5.1                       |4.5.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[leopardboy2 at yahoo dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

leopardboy2 at yahoo dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |leopardboy2 at yahoo dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #27 from leopardboy2 at yahoo dot com 2011-09-04 18:02:22 UTC ---
I had the same failure on GCC 4.6 ( 4.6 branch as of 9/03/2011)  cross building
for m68k.   I added the proposed patch from above and rebuilt GCC and it fixed
it...

Can this fix get put into the 4.6 branch also?

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[tg at mirbsd dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

--- Comment #26 from Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd dot org> 2011-07-26 20:16:22 UTC ---
Both gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.6 with that patch applied compile memtest.i properly.

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[tg at mirbsd dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

--- Comment #25 from Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd dot org> 2011-07-01 19:36:06 UTC ---
Applied the diff from svn r172920 to the Debian gcc-4.6 source package as well;
let’s see whether this works.

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.5.3                       |4.5.4

--- Comment #24 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-28 14:51:53 UTC ---
GCC 4.5.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone.

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[mikpe at it dot uu.se]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mikpe at it dot uu.se

--- Comment #21 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2011-02-27 09:34:08 UTC ---
*** Bug 47909 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.5.2                       |4.5.3

--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-16 13:03:46 UTC ---
GCC 4.5.2 is being released, adjusting target milestone.

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[tg at mirbsd dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

--- Comment #19 from Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd dot org> 2010-10-23 17:43:59 UTC ---
I could build gcc-4.4 on Debian with it, and the patch has been included
into the package since. No testsuite runs with it, though – I will do it
on real hardware whose usage I have been offered, but this will take a
while longer. Just so you know.

[Bug target/43804] [4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands

[tg at mirbsd dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804

Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tg at mirbsd dot org

--- Comment #18 from Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd dot org> 2010-10-18 16:14:04 UTC ---
I just added your patch (Attachment #20541) to my Debian source package
gcc-4.4_4.4.5-3+m68k.1 – Finn Thain says it fixes that problem for him,
and it does occur in compiling the debugging libstdc++ after bootstrap,
so I will be able to report success (I hope) soonish. Except genattrtab
takes 3.5 hours in 4.4 instead of less than half an hour in 4.3… so, it
will be some days.