From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24991 invoked by alias); 21 May 2014 23:35:35 -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 24931 invoked by uid 48); 21 May 2014 23:35:31 -0000 From: "sandra at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/60102] powerpc fp-bit ices at dwf_regno Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 23:35:00 -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: sandra at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: 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: 2014-05/txt/msg01900.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102 --- Comment #9 from Sandra Loosemore --- I've been looking at this a little bit more. DWARF_FRAME_REGNUM is specifically documented to take a hard register number as its operand, so the assertion in dwf_regno is at least consistent with that. The one in dbx_reg_number is more dubious, since neither LEAF_REG_REMAP or DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER are documented to require a hard register number. So: either the powerpc backend is broken to be using a pseudo in this context, or else the documentation for DWARF_FRAME_REGNUM should be changed to permit this and the assertions (as necessary) moved into the target-specific implementations of these macros.