From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-445774-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1587 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2014 06:33:27 -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 1550 invoked by uid 48); 8 Mar 2014 06:33:21 -0000
From: "manjian2006 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 06:33:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manjian2006 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-60438-4-5KS9hCMGQo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60438-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60438-4@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: 2014-03/txt/msg00643.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438

--- Comment #13 from linzj <manjian2006 at gmail dot com> ---
Thank Jakub for the short test case and the revision.
Before revision 205498,the prologue is:
(insn/f:TI 77 78 79 2 (parallel [
            (set (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -36 [0xffffffffffffffdc])))
            (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
            (clobber (mem:BLK (scratch) [0  A8]))
        ]) 1.cpp:11 798 {pro_epilogue_adjust_stack_si_add}
     (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
        (nil)))
Then r205498:
(insn/f:TI 75 76 77 2 (parallel [
            (set (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -40 [0xffffffffffffffd8])))
            (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
            (clobber (mem:BLK (scratch) [0  A8]))
        ]) 1.cpp:11 798 {pro_epilogue_adjust_stack_si_add}
     (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
        (expr_list:REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA (set (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -40 [0xffffffffffffffd8])))

See the added REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA?,that make the cur_cfa->reg ==
dw_stack_pointer_regnum.Before r205498,without this expr,cur_cfa->reg ==
dw_frame_pointer_regnum.

And we can see r205498 actually makes the data looks right.Because we have
omitted the frame pointer, so cur_cfa->reg == dw_frame_pointer_regnum makes no
sense.So the real problem is still the jump2 pass.It should never cross jump
between two blocks without the same REG_ARGS_SIZE.