From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-334094-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5518 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2010 15:43:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 5490 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2010 15:43:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50,MISSING_MID,TW_CP
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:43:14 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/45472] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: in move_op_ascend, at sel-sched.c:6124 with -fselective-scheduling2
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.2
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
In-Reply-To: <bug-45472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-45472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:43:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg01483.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101018154300.DvOSo5f7yAzRgc0cnCievCBsF1uL9Np-2wcr1EPhubw@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472

--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-18 15:42:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Would it make sense to make the statement volatile even if only some
> subcomponents (or all subcomponents) are volatile?
> 
> I like (2); if I understand it correctly, in this case vv1 and vv2 would not be
> volatile, but you'd still have
> 
>    vv1 ={v} vv2;
> 
> in the GIMPLE source.  It should be possible to use a bit on
> {ARRAY,RECORD,UNION,QUAL_UNION}_TYPE to cache this, e.g.
> 
> #define TYPE_HAS_VOLATILE_PARTS(T) \
>    (AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (T) \
>     ? TYPE_UNSIGNED (T) \
>     : TYPE_VOLATILE (T))
> 
> #define AGGREGATE_TYPE_CHECK(T) \
>    TREE_CHECK4(T, ARRAY_TYPE, RECORD_TYPE, UNION_TYPE, QUAL_UNION_TYPE)
> 
> #define SET_TYPE_HAS_VOLATILE_PARTS(T, V) \
>    (TYPE_UNSIGNED (AGGREGATE_TYPE_CHECK (T)) = (V))
> 
> Separately, expand would of course need to be taught about expanding accesses
> to volatile subcomponents as mem/v.  If this approach was feasible, it would
> have the advantage of splitting the task in two parts, one for GIMPLE
> (including possibly the verifier) and one for expand.

If we want to treat vv1 = vv2 as volatile then the frontends can now simply
emit MEM_REF <&vv1> = MEM_REF <&vv2> with TREE_THIS_VOLATILE set and things
should work.  That leaves it up to the frontend on how to deal with this.

The much harder question is how to expand vv1 = vv2 "correctly".  Thus,
we need to define what happens and document it.

Also consider memcpy (&vv1, &vv2) and eventually the compiler optimizing
that to vv1 = vv2 (note the lack of {v} here).