[Bug lto/64025] [5 Regression] Several testsuite execution failures with -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects

["ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025

--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This breaks because find_base_term is confused by what ix86_find_base_term
> (which calls ix86_delegitimize_address) returns, namely the
> (something - symbol_ref ("_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_")) + (const ((symbol_ref
> ("p") + const_int))
> as find_base_term considers only one symbol for its purposes.
> So, either we change ix86_find_base_term, so that it hides the (something -
> symbol_ref ("_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_")) part - often it stands for 0,
> as something is often just VALUE of the pic register or say pic register
> plus some variable offset and just returns the other part, or
> swap the order of the PLUS operands, so that the (const ...) part comes
> first and thus find_base_term first recurses on that, or move
> ix86_delegitimize_address to ix86_delegitimize_address_1, call it from
> ix86_delegitimize_address with some bool flag allowing what it does now, and
> from ix86_find_base_term disallowing that.  Or change find_base_term, so
> that for PLUS/MINUS it always recurses into both arguments, and if both
> provide different bases, returns NULL (though, this change might be too
> expensive).
> Preferences?

I think that we should just swap the order of the PLUS operands and add some
comment on the expected form of the RTX.
>From gcc-bugs-return-468418-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Nov 24 19:01:38 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-468418-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16007 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2014 19:01:38 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15917 invoked by uid 48); 24 Nov 2014 19:01:34 -0000
From: "meissner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63965] [5 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2230 on ppc64
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:01:00 -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: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-63965-4-3y1BEsUeY1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63965-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63965-4@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: 2014-11/txt/msg02890.txt.bz2
Content-length: 634

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc965

Michael Meissner <meissner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner <meissner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Whoops, I committed the wrong changes. I committed a change that I was working
on (but I had not gotten it to work yet), instead of the fix that was approved.
 I have backed out those changes (subversion id 218027), and I will shortly
submit the correct patch.