[Bug c/100785] New: ICE: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.c:3401

[Bug c/100785] New: ICE: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.c:3401

[cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

            Bug ID: 100785
           Summary: ICE: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.c:3401
           Product: gcc
           Version: tree-ssa
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: cnsun at uwaterloo dot ca
  Target Milestone: ---

$ gcc-trunk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-trunk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /tmp/tmp.tVhv2eaPzV-gcc-builder/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-checking-yes --enable-multiarch
--prefix=/scratch/software/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210526 (experimental) [master revision
:21638bbbf:1fd76b24306ed4df4cf9e797d900699ed59ce7f7] (GCC)

$ cat mutant.c
foo(struct { int a : 1; } * x) { __asm__("" : "+m"(x->a)); }

$ gcc-trunk  mutant.c
mutant.c:1:5: warning: anonymous struct declared inside parameter list will not
be visible outside of this definition or declaration
    1 | foo(struct { int a : 1; } * x) { __asm__("" : "+m"(x->a)); }
      |     ^~~~~~
mutant.c:1:1: warning: return type defaults to ‘int’ [-Wimplicit-int]
    1 | foo(struct { int a : 1; } * x) { __asm__("" : "+m"(x->a)); }
      | ^~~
mutant.c: In function ‘foo’:
mutant.c:1:34: error: output number 0 not directly addressable
    1 | foo(struct { int a : 1; } * x) { __asm__("" : "+m"(x->a)); }
      |                                  ^~~~~~~
during RTL pass: expand
mutant.c:1:34: internal compiler error: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.c:3401
0x68b3a6 expand_asm_stmt
        /tmp/tmp.tVhv2eaPzV-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3401
0xa41bb9 expand_gimple_stmt_1
        /tmp/tmp.tVhv2eaPzV-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3847
0xa41bb9 expand_gimple_stmt
        /tmp/tmp.tVhv2eaPzV-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:4014
0xa47d09 expand_gimple_basic_block
        /tmp/tmp.tVhv2eaPzV-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6056
0xa49bdf execute
        /tmp/tmp.tVhv2eaPzV-gcc-builder/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6782
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.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|                            |4.8.5
           Severity|normal                      |minor
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
            Summary|ICE: in expand_asm_stmt     |[9/10/11/12 Regression]
                   |with "m" and bitfield       |ICE: in expand_asm_stmt
                   |                            |with "m" and bitfield
   Target Milestone|---                         |9.4
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-05-27

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, a regression from at least 4.8.5 where there was no ICE (or
"confused by earlier errors, bailing out"). At least GCC 7.5.0 has the bug.


Minor issue as there was an error emitted before the ICE happens.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started with r6-4623-gee45a32dae253f7daa966573eb8cb64b2cf7bf52

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
That revision changed already the original dump:
-  __asm__("":"+m" <<< error >>>:);
+  __asm__("":"+m" x->a:);
and during gimplification the asm stmt used to be removed instead of being
kept.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
In particular it is the
+       * c-typeck.c (build_unary_op) <ADDR_EXPR>: Remove left-overs.  Issue
+       errors on bit-fields and reverse SSO here and not...
+       (c_mark_addressable): ...here.
change here, when handling inline asm constraints that don't allow registers
the FEs call *mark_addressable:
9265              /* If the operand is going to end up in memory,
9266                 mark it addressable.  */
9267              if (!allows_reg && !c_mark_addressable (output))
9268                output = error_mark_node;
and previously that would diagnose the bitfields but now it doesn't.
So, one way to fix this is restore the error also in c_mark_addressable (and
guess C++ FE too), or at the spots where for inline asm c_mark_addressable is
called also check for bit-fields and diagnose there, or fix the ICE during
expansion where it is diagnosed right now.
E.g. instantiate_virtual_regs_in_insn when seeing errors in inline asm will do:
          /* For asm goto, instead of fixing up all the edges
             just clear the template and clear input and output operands
             and strip away clobbers.  */
          if (JUMP_P (insn))
            {
              rtx asm_op = extract_asm_operands (PATTERN (insn));
              PATTERN (insn) = asm_op;
              PUT_MODE (asm_op, VOIDmode);
              ASM_OPERANDS_TEMPLATE (asm_op) = ggc_strdup ("");
              ASM_OPERANDS_OUTPUT_CONSTRAINT (asm_op) = "";
              ASM_OPERANDS_OUTPUT_IDX (asm_op) = 0;
              ASM_OPERANDS_INPUT_VEC (asm_op) = rtvec_alloc (0);
              ASM_OPERANDS_INPUT_CONSTRAINT_VEC (asm_op) = rtvec_alloc (0);
            }
          else
            delete_insn (insn);
so perhaps expansion when it detects errors should treat it similarly,
don't emit anything unless it is asm goto and trivialize asm goto.
Note, the cfgexpand.c and FE fixes can be done both.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P4                          |P2

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With:
--- gcc/cfgexpand.c.jj  2021-05-20 09:03:54.147700369 +0200
+++ gcc/cfgexpand.c     2021-05-31 20:48:28.078548261 +0200
@@ -3082,6 +3082,7 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
   unsigned ninputs = gimple_asm_ninputs (stmt);
   unsigned nlabels = gimple_asm_nlabels (stmt);
   unsigned i;
+  bool error_seen = false;

   /* ??? Diagnose during gimplification?  */
   if (ninputs + noutputs + nlabels > MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS)
@@ -3140,6 +3141,7 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
                {
                  /* ??? Diagnose during gimplification?  */
                  error ("unknown register name %qs in %<asm%>", regname);
+                 error_seen = true;
                }
              else if (j == -4)
                {
@@ -3202,7 +3204,10 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
                && REG_P (DECL_RTL (output_tvec[j]))
                && HARD_REGISTER_P (DECL_RTL (output_tvec[j]))
                && output_hregno == REGNO (DECL_RTL (output_tvec[j])))
-             error ("invalid hard register usage between output operands");
+             {
+               error ("invalid hard register usage between output operands");
+               error_seen = true;
+             }

          /* Verify matching constraint operands use the same hard register
             and that the non-matching constraint operands do not use the same
@@ -3225,13 +3230,19 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
                  }
                if (i == match
                    && output_hregno != input_hregno)
-                 error ("invalid hard register usage between output operand "
-                        "and matching constraint operand");
+                 {
+                   error ("invalid hard register usage between output "
+                          "operand and matching constraint operand");
+                   error_seen = true;
+                 }
                else if (early_clobber_p
                         && i != match
                         && output_hregno == input_hregno)
-                 error ("invalid hard register usage between earlyclobber "
-                        "operand and input operand");
+                 {
+                   error ("invalid hard register usage between "
+                          "earlyclobber operand and input operand");
+                   error_seen = true;
+                 }
              }
        }

@@ -3307,7 +3318,10 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
            op = validize_mem (op);

          if (! allows_reg && !MEM_P (op))
-           error ("output number %d not directly addressable", i);
+           {
+             error ("output number %d not directly addressable", i);
+             error_seen = true;
+           }
          if ((! allows_mem && MEM_P (op) && GET_MODE (op) != BLKmode)
              || GET_CODE (op) == CONCAT)
            {
@@ -3347,6 +3361,19 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
        inout_opnum.safe_push (i);
     }

+  const char *str = gimple_asm_string (stmt);
+  if (error_seen)
+    {
+      ninputs = 0;
+      noutputs = 0;
+      inout_opnum.truncate (0);
+      output_rvec.truncate (0);
+      clobber_rvec.truncate (0);
+      constraints.truncate (0);
+      CLEAR_HARD_REG_SET (clobbered_regs);
+      str = "";
+    }
+
   auto_vec<rtx, MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS> input_rvec;
   auto_vec<machine_mode, MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS> input_mode;

@@ -3405,7 +3432,7 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)
     }

   /* For in-out operands, copy output rtx to input rtx.  */
-  unsigned ninout = inout_opnum.length();
+  unsigned ninout = inout_opnum.length ();
   for (i = 0; i < ninout; i++)
     {
       int j = inout_opnum[i];
@@ -3459,7 +3486,7 @@ expand_asm_stmt (gasm *stmt)

   rtx body = gen_rtx_ASM_OPERANDS ((noutputs == 0 ? VOIDmode
                                    : GET_MODE (output_rvec[0])),
-                                  ggc_strdup (gimple_asm_string (stmt)),
+                                  ggc_strdup (str),
                                   "", 0, argvec, constraintvec,
                                   labelvec, locus);
   MEM_VOLATILE_P (body) = gimple_asm_volatile_p (stmt);

ICEs on:
/* PR inline-asm/100785 */

struct S { int a : 1; };

void
foo (struct S *x)
{
  __asm__ ("" : "+m" (x->a));   /* { dg-error "not directly addressable" } */
}

void
bar (struct S *x)
{
  __asm__ ("" : "=m" (x->a));   /* { dg-error "not directly addressable" } */
}

void
baz (struct S *x)
{
  __asm__ ("" : : "m" (x->a));  /* { dg-error "not directly addressable" } */
}

in foo and bar are fixed, but baz is actually not diagnosed at all and just
ICEs.
So bumping priority to P2, as this isn't error-recovery in the baz case
anymore.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.4                         |9.5

--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 50904
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50904&action=edit
gcc12-pr100785.patch

Untested fix.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:644c2cc5f2c09506a7bfef293a7f90efa8d7e5fa

commit r12-1696-g644c2cc5f2c09506a7bfef293a7f90efa8d7e5fa
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Jun 21 13:30:42 2021 +0200

    inline-asm: Fix ICE with bitfields in "m" operands [PR100785]

    Bitfields, while they live in memory, aren't something inline-asm can
easily
    operate on.
    For C and "=m" or "+m", we were diagnosing bitfields in the past in the
    FE, where c_mark_addressable had:
          case COMPONENT_REF:
            if (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (TREE_OPERAND (x, 1)))
              {
                error
                  ("cannot take address of bit-field %qD", TREE_OPERAND (x,
1));
                return false;
              }
    but that check got moved in GCC 6 to build_unary_op instead and now we
    emit an error during expansion and ICE afterwards (i.e. error-recovery).
    For "m" it used to be diagnosed in c_mark_addressable too, but since
    GCC 6 it is ice-on-invalid.
    For C++, this was never diagnosed in the FE, but used to be diagnosed
    in the gimplifier and/or during expansion before 4.8.

    The following patch does multiple things:
    1) diagnoses it in the FEs
    2) stops emitting a redundant diagnostic in the gimplifier using the
       usual way, if we already see error_mark_node, we assume error has
       been emitted already and only diagnose if it wasn't error_mark_node;
       this helps diagnosing the same bug with multiple different
       errors
    3) simplifies during expansion the inline asm if any errors have been
       reported (similarly how e.g. vregs pass if it detects errors on
       inline-asm either deletes them or simplifies to bare minimum -
       just labels), so that we don't have error-recovery ICEs there

    2021-06-11  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR inline-asm/100785
    gcc/
            * gimplify.c (gimplify_asm_expr): Don't diagnose errors if
            output or input operands were already error_mark_node.
            * cfgexpand.c (expand_asm_stmt): If errors are emitted,
            remove all inputs, outputs and clobbers from the asm and
            set template to "".
    gcc/c/
            * c-typeck.c (c_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/cp/
            * typeck.c (cxx_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/testsuite/
            * c-c++-common/pr100785.c: New test.
            * gcc.dg/pr48552-1.c: Don't expect invalid lvalue errors.
            * gcc.dg/pr48552-2.c: Likewise.

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6e4453172e6502318d31517b7d3771b157ae71a

commit r11-8642-gb6e4453172e6502318d31517b7d3771b157ae71a
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Jun 21 13:30:42 2021 +0200

    inline-asm: Fix ICE with bitfields in "m" operands [PR100785]

    Bitfields, while they live in memory, aren't something inline-asm can
easily
    operate on.
    For C and "=m" or "+m", we were diagnosing bitfields in the past in the
    FE, where c_mark_addressable had:
          case COMPONENT_REF:
            if (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (TREE_OPERAND (x, 1)))
              {
                error
                  ("cannot take address of bit-field %qD", TREE_OPERAND (x,
1));
                return false;
              }
    but that check got moved in GCC 6 to build_unary_op instead and now we
    emit an error during expansion and ICE afterwards (i.e. error-recovery).
    For "m" it used to be diagnosed in c_mark_addressable too, but since
    GCC 6 it is ice-on-invalid.
    For C++, this was never diagnosed in the FE, but used to be diagnosed
    in the gimplifier and/or during expansion before 4.8.

    The following patch does multiple things:
    1) diagnoses it in the FEs
    2) simplifies during expansion the inline asm if any errors have been
       reported (similarly how e.g. vregs pass if it detects errors on
       inline-asm either deletes them or simplifies to bare minimum -
       just labels), so that we don't have error-recovery ICEs there

    2021-06-11  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR inline-asm/100785
    gcc/
            * cfgexpand.c (expand_asm_stmt): If errors are emitted,
            remove all inputs, outputs and clobbers from the asm and
            set template to "".
    gcc/c/
            * c-typeck.c (c_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/cp/
            * typeck.c (cxx_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/testsuite/
            * c-c++-common/pr100785.c: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 644c2cc5f2c09506a7bfef293a7f90efa8d7e5fa)

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression]     |[9/10 Regression] ICE: in
                   |ICE: in expand_asm_stmt     |expand_asm_stmt with "m"
                   |with "m" and bitfield       |and bitfield

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 11.2 and trunk so far.

[Bug c/100785] [9/10 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ca92f0c253283cdcd7b6afcbbcd37c1fdcda6d8

commit r10-10624-g1ca92f0c253283cdcd7b6afcbbcd37c1fdcda6d8
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Jun 21 13:30:42 2021 +0200

    inline-asm: Fix ICE with bitfields in "m" operands [PR100785]

    Bitfields, while they live in memory, aren't something inline-asm can
easily
    operate on.
    For C and "=m" or "+m", we were diagnosing bitfields in the past in the
    FE, where c_mark_addressable had:
          case COMPONENT_REF:
            if (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (TREE_OPERAND (x, 1)))
              {
                error
                  ("cannot take address of bit-field %qD", TREE_OPERAND (x,
1));
                return false;
              }
    but that check got moved in GCC 6 to build_unary_op instead and now we
    emit an error during expansion and ICE afterwards (i.e. error-recovery).
    For "m" it used to be diagnosed in c_mark_addressable too, but since
    GCC 6 it is ice-on-invalid.
    For C++, this was never diagnosed in the FE, but used to be diagnosed
    in the gimplifier and/or during expansion before 4.8.

    The following patch does multiple things:
    1) diagnoses it in the FEs
    2) simplifies during expansion the inline asm if any errors have been
       reported (similarly how e.g. vregs pass if it detects errors on
       inline-asm either deletes them or simplifies to bare minimum -
       just labels), so that we don't have error-recovery ICEs there

    2021-06-11  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR inline-asm/100785
    gcc/
            * cfgexpand.c (expand_asm_stmt): If errors are emitted,
            remove all inputs, outputs and clobbers from the asm and
            set template to "".
    gcc/c/
            * c-typeck.c (c_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/cp/
            * typeck.c (cxx_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/testsuite/
            * c-c++-common/pr100785.c: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 644c2cc5f2c09506a7bfef293a7f90efa8d7e5fa)

[Bug c/100785] [9/10 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21a95d88fe628d1da4d59c4eface53503b29a574

commit r9-10081-g21a95d88fe628d1da4d59c4eface53503b29a574
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Jun 21 13:30:42 2021 +0200

    inline-asm: Fix ICE with bitfields in "m" operands [PR100785]

    Bitfields, while they live in memory, aren't something inline-asm can
easily
    operate on.
    For C and "=m" or "+m", we were diagnosing bitfields in the past in the
    FE, where c_mark_addressable had:
          case COMPONENT_REF:
            if (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (TREE_OPERAND (x, 1)))
              {
                error
                  ("cannot take address of bit-field %qD", TREE_OPERAND (x,
1));
                return false;
              }
    but that check got moved in GCC 6 to build_unary_op instead and now we
    emit an error during expansion and ICE afterwards (i.e. error-recovery).
    For "m" it used to be diagnosed in c_mark_addressable too, but since
    GCC 6 it is ice-on-invalid.
    For C++, this was never diagnosed in the FE, but used to be diagnosed
    in the gimplifier and/or during expansion before 4.8.

    The following patch does multiple things:
    1) diagnoses it in the FEs
    2) simplifies during expansion the inline asm if any errors have been
       reported (similarly how e.g. vregs pass if it detects errors on
       inline-asm either deletes them or simplifies to bare minimum -
       just labels), so that we don't have error-recovery ICEs there

    2021-06-11  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR inline-asm/100785
    gcc/
            * cfgexpand.c (expand_asm_stmt): If errors are emitted,
            remove all inputs, outputs and clobbers from the asm and
            set template to "".
    gcc/c/
            * c-typeck.c (c_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/cp/
            * typeck.c (cxx_mark_addressable): Diagnose trying to make
            bit-fields addressable.
    gcc/testsuite/
            * c-c++-common/pr100785.c: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 644c2cc5f2c09506a7bfef293a7f90efa8d7e5fa)

[Bug c/100785] [9/10 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.