public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/94740] ICE on testsuite/gcc.dg/sso/t5.c with -mcpu=future -mpcrel -O1
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:33:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-94740-4-krsWHpEuAq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-94740-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94740

--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
<rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591d857164c37cd0bb96da2a293148e01f280e0f

commit r10-8080-g591d857164c37cd0bb96da2a293148e01f280e0f
Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Date:   Thu Apr 30 20:32:49 2020 +0100

    cse: Use simplify_replace_fn_rtx to process notes [PR94740]

    cse_process_notes did a very simple substitution, which in the wrong
    circumstances could create non-canonical RTL and invalid MEMs.
    Various sticking plasters have been applied to cse_process_notes_1
    to handle cases like ZERO_EXTEND, SIGN_EXTEND and UNSIGNED_FLOAT,
    but I think this PR is a plaster too far.

    The code is trying hard to avoid creating unnecessary rtl, which of
    course is a good thing.  If we continue to do that, then we can end
    up changing subexpressions while keeping the containing rtx.
    This in turn means that validate_change will be a no-op on the
    containing rtx, even if its contents have changed.  So in these
    cases we have to apply validate_change to the individual subexpressions.

    On the other hand, if we always apply validate_change to the
    individual subexpressions, we'll end up calling validate_change
    on something before it has been simplified and canonicalised.
    And that's one of the situations we're trying to avoid.

    There might be a middle ground in which we queue the validate_changes
    as part of a group, and so can cancel the pending validate_changes
    for subexpressions if there's a change in the outer expression.
    But that seems even more ad-hoc than the current code.
    It would also be quite an invasive change.

    I think the best thing is just to hook into the existing
    simplify_replace_fn_rtx function, keeping the REG and MEM handling
    from cse_process_notes_1 essentially unchanged.  It can generate
    more redundant rtl when a simplification takes place, but it has
    the advantage of being relative well-used code (both directly
    and via simplify_replace_rtx).

    2020-04-30  Richard Sandiford  <richard.sandiford@arm.com>

    gcc/
            PR rtl-optimization/94740
            * cse.c (cse_process_notes_1): Replace with...
            (cse_process_note_1): ...this new function, acting as a
            simplify_replace_fn_rtx callback to process_note.  Handle only
            REGs and MEMs directly.  Validate the MEM if cse_process_note
            changes its address.
            (cse_process_notes): Replace with...
            (cse_process_note): ...this new function.
            (cse_extended_basic_block): Update accordingly, iterating over
            the register notes and passing individual notes to
cse_process_note.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-04-30 19:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-24  1:31 [Bug target/94740] New: " acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-24  2:37 ` [Bug target/94740] " acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-24 16:08 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-24 17:11 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-24 17:14 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-27 18:33 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/94740] " bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-28 19:03 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-29 21:33 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-30 19:01 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-30 19:33 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-04-30 23:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-12 21:20 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-94740-4-krsWHpEuAq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).