From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-382120-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6878 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2012 11:47:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 6867 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2012 11:47:44 -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; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:16 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/52074] ICE: RTL flag check: MEM_VOLATILE_P used with unexpected rtx code 'plus' in extract_fixed_bit_field, at expmed.c:1734
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:00 -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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-52074-4-kFh6CmfPtC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52074-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52074-4@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/msg00054.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52074

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

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

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-01 11:47:00 UTC ---
C testcase (-m64 -O2):
struct S { const char *d, *e; } __attribute__((packed));

void
foo (const char **p, struct S *q)
{
  *p = "abcdef";
  q->d = "ghijk";
}

I'd say the bug is in the section anchor support (and the bug goes away with
-O2 -fno-section-anchors; so I'd expect this is a regression since
-fsection-anchors has been introduced and made default on ppc64), because
expand_normal on ADDR_EXPR of the STRING_CST returns a PLUS (which IMHO should
be ok only for EXPAND_SUM etc. but not EXPAND_NORMAL).