[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

["olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699

Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-10-09
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-09 10:41:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Doing this...
> 
> Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/config/sh/sh.c    (revision 191865)
> +++ gcc/config/sh/sh.c    (working copy)
> @@ -10079,6 +10079,9 @@
>  static bool
>  sh_legitimate_address_p (enum machine_mode mode, rtx x, bool strict)
>  {
> +  if (reload_completed)
> +    return true;
> +
>    if (MAYBE_BASE_REGISTER_RTX_P (x, strict))
>      return true;
>    else if ((GET_CODE (x) == POST_INC || GET_CODE (x) == PRE_DEC)
> 
> 
> makes the ICE go away.  However, I have not tested this for any other
> consequences.
> 

I'm wondering whether there is anything after reload that actually needs
address validation.  I guess that after the reload pass pretty much everything
should have been fixed up which could generate invalid addresses that need to
be transformed.  Of course, in one of the split passes after reload or the
peephole2 pass somebody could write a pattern that would result in an invalid
address.  But even now with the address checking after reload, if there is an
invalid address left after reload, which pass would legitimize it?