From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 5058E3858005; Thu,  4 Nov 2021 19:30:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5058E3858005
From: "wilco at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103085] [12 Regression] -fPIC and
 -fstack-protector-strong broken AArch64
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 19:30:07 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on assigned_to
 everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-103085-4-KipkqMKDBg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103085-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103085-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 19:30:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103085

Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-11-04
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |wilco at gcc dot gn=
u.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes there is something hacky about the way the salt thingy works. It adds s=
ome
unspec around a memory operand and still expects the standard movdi pattern=
 to
recognize it.

It looks like adding support for CONST in Usw constraint and stripping the =
salt
before checking the symbol in mov_operand_p fixes it. I'm testing a patch.=