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.
next prev 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: linkBe 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).