From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-387113-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27211 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2012 12:01:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 27199 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2012 12:01:16 -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; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:01:04 +0000
From: "aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/52306] ICE in CSE
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:47:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aoliva 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:
Message-ID: <bug-52306-4-0CocEUZmys@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52306-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52306-4@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: 2012-03/txt/msg02166.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306

--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-25 12:00:34 UTC ---
The bug, duplicated by compiling attachment 26150, from bug 43437 comment 16,
with a cross-compiler to m68k-elf with -O -c, exposes a reload problem.  Before
reload, we have this insn:

(insn 288 287 290 40 (set (reg/f:SI 124 [ D.1788 ])
        (mem/f:SI (post_inc:SI (reg:SI 145 [ ivtmp.76 ])) [5 MEM[base:
D.1889_285, offset: 0B]+0 S4 A16])) pr52306.c:278 37 {*movsi_m68k2}
     (expr_list:REG_INC (reg:SI 145 [ ivtmp.76 ])
        (nil)))

reload turns this into:

(insn 639 287 640 40 (set (reg:SI 9 %a1)
        (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %a6)
                (const_int -44 [0xffffffffffffffd4])) [13 %sfp+-44 S4 A16]))
pr5
2306.c:278 36 {*movsi_m68k}
     (nil))

(insn 640 639 288 40 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %a6)
                (const_int -44 [0xffffffffffffffd4])) [13 %sfp+-44 S4 A16])
        (plus:SI (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %a6)
                    (const_int -44 [0xffffffffffffffd4])) [13 %sfp+-44 S4 A16])
            (const_int 4 [0x4]))) pr52306.c:278 132 {*addsi3_internal}
     (nil))

(insn 288 640 290 40 (set (reg:SI 9 %a1)
        (mem/f:SI (post_inc:SI (reg:SI 9 %a1)) [5 MEM[base: D.1889_285, offset:
0B]+0 S4 A16])) pr52306.c:278 37 {*movsi_m68k2}
     (expr_list:REG_INC (reg:SI 9 %a1)
        (nil)))

reload correctly performs the post_inc in a separate insn, but it fails to
remove the post_inc from the MEM that had it, so we end up with two concurrent
modifications of the same register, which is not well-formed RTX.