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 9855C385842D; Wed,  9 Feb 2022 15:56:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9855C385842D
From: "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/104117] [9,10,11,12 Regression] Darwin ppc64 uses
 invalid non-PIC address to access constants (in PIC code).
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:56:45 +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: 10.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: link-failure, ra, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104117-4-O1XNuq0Exq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104117-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104117-4@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: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:56:45 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104117

--- Comment #21 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #20)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > > I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR.
>=20
> > > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > > @@ -8202,7 +8202,7 @@ legitimate_lo_sum_address_p (machine_mode mode,=
 rtx x,
> > > int strict)
> > >      {
> > >        bool large_toc_ok;
> > >=20
> > > -      if (DEFAULT_ABI =3D=3D ABI_V4 && flag_pic)
> > > +      if ((DEFAULT_ABI =3D=3D ABI_V4 || DEFAULT_ABI =3D=3D ABI_DARWI=
N) && flag_pic)
> > >         return false;
>=20
> On testing, this is not sufficient - one ends up with ICEs when we reject=
 a
> valid (UNSPEC-wrapped) address here.  So I think that the slightly more
> elaborate target changes are required - but the LRA change seems fine!
>=20
> ... reg-straps on this old h/w take > 1 day .. so some more time will be
> needed for a complete answer.

Ian, you have my approval for LRA changes in advance for committing them in=
to
the master and the branches when the overall patch is ready.  Thank you for
working on machine-dependent parts of the patch.=