From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-380648-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20059 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2012 14:40:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 20045 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jan 2012 14:40:52 -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; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:40:39 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/51895] [4.7 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:30:00 -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:
Message-ID: <bug-51895-4-qIrTLq3AjI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51895-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51895-4@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: 2012-01/txt/msg02323.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895

--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-20 14:40:09 UTC ---
Testing

@@ -3891,6 +3853,8 @@ decide_one_param_reduction (struct acces
     {
       by_ref = false;
       agg_size = cur_parm_size;
+      if (DECL_MODE (parm) != BLKmode)
+    return 0;
     }

   if (dump_file)

as passing a parameter by value in non-BLKmode (on the PARM_DECL) should
be good evidence to not split it down further (in this case we have
TYPE_SIZE != MODE_SIZE as well, but that's another story).

Hopefully DECL_MODE on the PARM_DECL is good enough and reflects actual
argument passing closely enough ... ?