From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10722 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2012 13:04:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 10713 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2012 13:04:12 -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; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:03:59 +0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/51895] [4.7 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:12:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Priority Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg02141.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895 Richard Guenther changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19 13:03:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Created attachment 26377 [details] > gcc47-pr51895.patch > > Untested patch that attempts to fix BLKmode MEM_REF expansion with > non-DECL_ADDRESSABLE non-BLKmode base. It creates abysmal code, so IMNSHO > eipa_sra should be fixed not to do this. Hm, can't we do better using extract_bit_field? I mean, it definitely should work to do any BIT_FIELD_REF on an rvalue, even if it is a register. The patch from comment #1 doesn't look completely wrong, it just seems that the caller should have catered for using the mode of the reg. The docs of operand_subword also say 'MODE is the mode of OP in case it is a CONST_INT' so MODE should be irrelevant if REG_P (op) ... Seems to be a tricky area, but using a stack temporary looks like overkill.