From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-340888-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9814 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2010 08:02:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 9803 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Dec 2010 08:02:30 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:02:26 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/46893] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: in trunc_int_for_mode, at explow.c:56 with -O -g
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-46893-4-vNhSiN1G37@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46893-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46893-4@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: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:02:00 -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: 2010-12/txt/msg01871.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46893

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

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

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-16 08:02:21 UTC ---
I agree the simplify-rtx.c change makes sense, but disagree on the cfgexpand.c
side.  In theory the VCE doesn't have to be the outermost expression, it can be
embedded in another handled component or another VCE, etc.
We expand tem to op0 and that only ever considers tem's mode, not mode1 or
whatever.  Thus, if op0 is a CONST_INT and thus has no mode, we should look at
tem's mode, which is where it would get its mode from if it had any.

I'm fine with limiting that just to CONST_INTs if you want.  But it also needs
to be done in both places, not just one.