[Bug target/57896] [4.8 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_2

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896

--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #21)
> --- config/i386/i386.c  (revision 207935)
> +++ config/i386/i386.c  (working copy)
> @@ -40666,9 +40666,9 @@ ix86_vectorize_vec_perm_const_ok (enum machine_mod
>    if (!d.one_operand_p)
>      d.op1 = gen_raw_REG (d.vmode, LAST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER + 3);
>  
> -  start_sequence ();
> +  init_dummy_function_start ();
>    ret = ix86_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&d);
> -  end_sequence ();
> +  expand_dummy_function_end ();
>  
>    return ret;
>  }
> --cut here--
> 
> Jakub, what do you think about this patch?

IMHO that is way too expensive.

So, say expand_vec_perm_interleave2 is only called with d->testing_p from
ix86_vectorize_vec_perm_const_ok, and thus I'd say something like:
  if (!d->testing_p)
    {
      dremap.target = gen_reg_rtx (dremap.vmode);
      dfinal.op0 = gen_lowpart (dfinal.vmode, dremap.target);
    }
  dfinal.op1 = dfinal.op0;
should fix expand_vec_perm_interleave2.  I think dfinal.op0 should have
dfinal.vmode already from the caller (we can easily perhaps gcc_checking_assert
double check it when testing the patch).
>From gcc-bugs-return-444334-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Feb 20 10:57:16 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444334-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11783 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2014 10:57:16 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11718 invoked by uid 48); 20 Feb 2014 10:57:11 -0000
From: "vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug go/60288] gccgo crashes compiling '*func_ptr(0)'
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: go
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ian at airs dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-60288-4-RibpBO22rB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60288-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60288-4@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: 2014-02/txt/msg02091.txt.bz2
Content-length: 298

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`288

--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt <vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com> ---
> So it looks like gccgo reads the expression as
>
>   (*pg)(0)
    ^^^^^^^^

I meant

->  (*(&g))(0)

> while golang reads it as
>
>   *(pg(0))
    ^^^^^^^^

->  *(&(g(0)))