From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25377 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2014 15:47:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25324 invoked by uid 48); 3 Mar 2014 15:47:06 -0000 From: "meadori at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/58595] internal compiler error: in gen_movsi when compiling on arm some files of lttng-tools with -fPIE Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:47:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: meadori at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2014-03/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595 --- Comment #5 from Meador Inge --- Created attachment 32253 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32253&action=edit Work in progress patch. Yeah, I am came to the same conclusion after making that comment that removing the asserts is a bogus approach. Although, my follow up approach is a little different. I was trying to replicate what we currently have in the 'movsi' pattern (see attached). This seems to work for the basic tests I have tried. This patch is lightly tested, is obviously in need of cleanup (since it duplicates code), and doesn't cover the thumb case. I am just posting it for discussion purposes. Are we guaranteed to always have the const plus form? Or do we need to be more general like in the patch I attached?