From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-384063-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1699 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2012 19:46:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 1682 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2012 19:46:28 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:15 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:15:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: addr-space, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51782-4-mA5lBGVHfu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51782-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51782-4@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
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: 2012-02/txt/msg01997.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782

--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-02-20 19:44:46 UTC ---
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
> 
> --- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 17:27:36 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > base returned from get_base_address should never be NULL, so it's
> > safe to assume it isn't.  Otherwise the patch looks ok to me.
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately, when I was bootstrapping a modified patch without the
> NULL test on x86_64, it segfaulted.  The reason is that
> expand_debug_expr calls set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos and in t
> passes
> 
> MEM[(struct basic_stringbuf *)&__s._M_stringbuf]._M_string

That's an invalid MEM_REF, and the result of 
set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos is probably completely bogus.

> which might be OK for debug statements, I don't really know.  Even
> though I guess it might wreck havoc in address spaces in debug info,
> for now I'm reverting to the original patch from comment #17 for the
> purposes of this PR.

Ok, probably safer for 4.7

> Perhaps get_base_address misses a DECL_P in the condition looking into
> MEM_REFs?

No, sure not - in the above we have a component-ref inside the
ADDR_EXPR.

Richard.