From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-456667-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12459 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2014 19:20:17 -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 12283 invoked by uid 55); 17 Jul 2014 19:20:14 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/61320] [4.10 regression] ICE in jcf-parse.c:1622 (parse_class_file
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:20:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61320-4-P5yAdZPG1h@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61320-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61320-4@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: 2014-07/txt/msg01258.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320

--- Comment #55 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On July 17, 2014 6:13:14 PM CEST, "thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org"
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
>
>--- Comment #53 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>(In reply to thopre01 from comment #52)
>> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
>> > 
>> > TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the
>target though
>> > and, by definition, an unaligned access is not valid for a strict
>alignment
>> > target (unless you have a movmisalign pattern), so the problem is
>the
>> > TARGET_MEM_REF.
>> 
>> So we just need to identify what changes the MEM_REF that bswap
>introduce
>> into a TARGET_MEM_REF without taking alignment into account.
>> 
>> After bswap it's only a MEM_REF:
>> 
>> load_dst_215 = MEM[(unsigned char *)load_src_277];
>
>So it changes from a MEM_REF to a TARGET_MEM_REF in ivopts from a quick
>grep. I
>don't know how much this system but I can take a look after Cauldron
>where does
>this happen and bring the right person into this discussion.

You need to fix may_be_unaligned (or similar) in ivopts.