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 F25B63858CD1; Mon,  8 Apr 2024 18:06:55 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F25B63858CD1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712599615;
	bh=8O27ewlt/9qp9XDBIpDc4OoH2y3Nu8Czf8nkQ3zcvPY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OcTnn3sBvI93f+/3ClVy5hfbXfSxdfm+czCcjDLR1BMCXhpUhJfZod7lblt5bUTUA
	 b8afKj2m+BCXvbBfHzrhtjkkf2mgeFfp6rXPdpPI78c/AeTzammBrIaVD1aMdF1XEM
	 sP4DanPs/zDRc1EPxGvZhPtLl9N3fOtAngktubKs=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114621] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn,
 at recog.cc:2812 (unrecognizable insn) with -O -fpie and _Thread_local with
 large offset
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 18:06:55 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114621-4-TzzmkLTIr4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114621-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114621-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114621

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
While for the local exec we happily use something like
        movq    %fs:0, %rax
        movabsq $b@tpoff+34359738367, %rdx
        addq    %rdx, %rax
        movzbl  (%rax), %eax
we normally use instructions like
        movsbl  %fs:b@tpoff+31, %eax
Thus, I'd say at least in the normal code models we have a restriction that=
 the
static TLS area of the whole program must fit into 2GB.
If we want to support something larger, we'd need to use 64-bit relocations
consistently for all LE/IE accesses regardless of whether the immediate off=
set
into them is > 2GB or not, because it could just be that some other library=
 has
the static TLS area > 2GB and comes earlier, or some other TU etc.
x86-64 has both R_X86_64_TPOFF32 and R_X86_64_TPOFF64 relocations, but it
wouldn't help if we use the 32-bit ones in say
char a;
__thread char b[0x100000000L];
__thread char c[32L];

int
foo (void)
{
  return c[31L];
}
it just won't really link.=