public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-54699-4-hXQizVdviW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-54699-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>


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

--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-10 00:03:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 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?

*legitimate_address_p is a query function and possibly used to
verify some transformation of addressing.  It seems to me that

>  sh_legitimate_address_p (enum machine_mode mode, rtx x, bool strict)
>  {
> +  if (reload_completed)
> +    return true;

will open a can of worms.  With this change, I've got

../../../LOCAL/trunk/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__muldc3':
../../../LOCAL/trunk/libgcc/libgcc2.c:1929:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
 }
 ^
0x852c3a0 crash_signal
    ../../LOCAL/trunk/gcc/toplev.c:335
0x8772b21 sh_print_operand_address
    ../../LOCAL/trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c:1050
0x8308eba output_address(rtx_def*)
    ../../LOCAL/trunk/gcc/final.c:3680

during building libgcc on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.  gdb backtrace says

(gdb) fr 5
#5  0x083093a5 in output_asm_insn (templ=0x8a2621c "fmov.s\t%1,%0", 
    operands=0x8bc10c0) at ../../LOCAL/trunk/gcc/final.c:3562
3562              output_operand (operands[opnum], 0);
(gdb) call debug_rtx(operands[0])
(mem/c:SF (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 0 r0)
            (reg/f:SI 15 r15))
        (const_int 4 [0x4])) [2 %sfp+-24 S8 A32])
(gdb) call debug_rtx(operands[1])

It looks we've got reg+reg+const addressing.  It seems that
reload_completed simply means that hard register are allocated
already but doesn't mean transformations of addressing are done.
Splitting movsf_ie would be the way to go, I guess.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-10-10  0:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-25  8:43 [Bug target/54699] New: " kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-25 11:57 ` [Bug target/54699] " olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 20:06 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-30 21:09 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 10:41 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-10  0:04 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-10-10  0:23 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-25 15:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-06 16:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-06 17:00 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-29 21:13 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-22 14:48 ` [Bug target/54699] [4.8/4.9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-31 11:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-16  9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-22  9:07 ` [Bug target/54699] [4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-13 16:03 ` [Bug target/54699] [4.8/4.9/5 " olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23  8:22 ` [Bug target/54699] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 19:58 ` [Bug target/54699] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-14  9:46 ` [Bug target/54699] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01  8:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27  9:34 ` [Bug target/54699] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:29 ` [Bug target/54699] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-54699-4-hXQizVdviW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).