From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-426934-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21927 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2013 20:49:20 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 21840 invoked by uid 48); 29 Jul 2013 20:49:17 -0000
From: "bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/57748] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE on ARM with -mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=neon
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:49:00 -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-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57748-4-WwZY2S8RAz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57748-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57748-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg01441.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748

--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
> expand_assignment, offset as filled in get_inner_reference is the same,
> however get_object_alignment (tem) used to return 64, and now only returns
> 32 which then pushes us the wrong path which does not handle this case.  So
> now I guess I should figure out why get_object_alignment thinks the
> alignment is so small...

hhmm..

set_ptr_info_alignment is always called with align=4,
and by the way, the crash goes away if I change this line
(but I cannot tell if the code is correct):

--- builtins.c.jj       2013-07-06 11:34:17.000000000 +0200
+++ builtins.c  2013-07-29 21:50:56.000000000 +0200
@@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ get_pointer_alignment_1 (tree exp, unsig
          *bitposp = ptr_misalign * BITS_PER_UNIT;
          *alignp = ptr_align * BITS_PER_UNIT;
          /* We cannot really tell whether this result is an approximation.  */
-         return true;
+         return false;
        }
       else
        {