From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-436903-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10413 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2013 19:32:16 -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
Received: (qmail 10387 invoked by uid 48); 6 Dec 2013 19:32:12 -0000
From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/59399] ICE in expand_expr_real_1 with -m64 -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:32:00 -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: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59399-4-WH0mcU00wb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59399-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59399-4@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: 2013-12/txt/msg00558.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399

--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
On both x86_64 and ppc64, we have this identical SSA_NAME:

<ssa_name 0x7fb5a659ccf0
    type <integer_type 0x7fb5a65a4690 int sizes-gimplified public SI
        size <integer_cst 0x7fb5a65a6440 constant 32>
        unit size <integer_cst 0x7fb5a65a6460 constant 4>
        align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7fb5a65a4690 precision
32 min <integer_cst 0x7fb5a65a63e0 -2147483648> max <integer_cst 0x7fb5a65a6400
2147483647>
        pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7fb5a65b7738>>
    visited var <var_decl 0x7fb5a6722428 D.2423>def_stmt _3 = UBSAN_CHECK_ADD
(j_1(D), i_2(D));

    version 3>

Now in expr.c we call get_rtx_for_ssa_name on it.  On x86_64 the RTX is then
(reg:SI 83 [ D.2423 ]) while on ppc64 the RTX is (reg:DI 123 [ D.2759+-4 ]), so
we have a discrepancy here.  And then the following is true on ppc64
      if (REG_P (decl_rtl)
          && DECL_MODE (exp) != BLKmode
          && GET_MODE (decl_rtl) != DECL_MODE (exp))
because DECL_MODE (exp) is SImode, not DImode.  And then we make our way to the
block of code where we fail.

Why get_rtx_for_ssa_name returns different rtx for the same SSA_NAME?