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

--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #6)

> As an aside, in gcc 4.8.1 source code, before line 6995 of gcc/expr.c I put
>  
> printf("\nexpr.c:6995 value->code=%d NUM_RTX_CODE=%d\n",(int)
> value->code,NUM_RTX_CODE);
> gcc_assert((int) value->code < NUM_RTX_CODE);
> 
> and I get an ICE there because value->code is 34816 and NUM_RTX_CODE is 145
> 
> Indeed at line 6995 ARITHMETIC_P (value) accesses rtx_class[(int)
> value->code]
> but the array rtx_class has only NUM_RTX_CODE elements.
> However, I do not know how this is relevant to this issue.

This one points to infrastructure problem.

Adding a debug patch:

--cut here--
Index: explow.c
===================================================================
--- explow.c    (revision 207910)
+++ explow.c    (working copy)
@@ -186,8 +186,13 @@ plus_constant (enum machine_mode mode, rtx x, HOST
     }

   if (c != 0)
-    x = gen_rtx_PLUS (mode, x, GEN_INT (c));
+    {
+      rtx z = GEN_INT (c);
+      printf ("cccccc, %li\n", c);
+      debug_rtx (z);

+      x = gen_rtx_PLUS (mode, x, z);
+    }
   if (GET_CODE (x) == SYMBOL_REF || GET_CODE (x) == LABEL_REF)
     return x;
   else if (all_constant)
--cut here--

~/gcc-build-48/gcc/cc1 pr57896.c

...
 __get_cpuidcccccc, -4
(const_int -4 [0xfffffffffffffffc])
cccccc, -16
(const_int -16 [0xfffffffffffffff0])
cccccc, -24
(const_int -24 [0xffffffffffffffe8])
cccccc, -32
(const_int -32 [0xffffffffffffffe0])
cccccc, -40
(??? bad code 47104
)

pr57896.c: In function ‘__get_cpuid’:
pr57896.c:5:5: internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn_1, at expr.c:3437
 int __get_cpuid (unsigned int __level, unsigned int *__eax, unsigned int
*__ebx, unsigned int *__ecx, unsigned int *__edx) {
     ^
0x62d74d emit_move_insn_1(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
        /home/uros/gcc-svn/branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/expr.c:3437
0x62d7b5 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*)
        /home/uros/gcc-svn/branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/expr.c:3535

Please note that the debug patch only encloses GEN_INT (...)
>From gcc-bugs-return-444241-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 18:03:54 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444241-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15188 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2014 18:03:54 -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 14781 invoked by uid 48); 19 Feb 2014 18:03:48 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/37743] Bogus printf format warning with __builtin_bswap32.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:03:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-37743-4-yDecQATOVD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-37743-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-37743-4@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/msg01998.txt.bz2
Content-length: 299

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id7743

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 32173
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id2173&actioníit
gcc49-pr37743.patch

Untested fix.  The deprecation can hopefully be done separately.