PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

Hi,

We are very inconsistent when saving and restoring non-local goto save
area.  See:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48016

for detailed analysis.  OK for trunk?

Thanks.


H.J.
---
2011-06-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/48016
	* explow.c (emit_stack_save): Adjust mode of stack save area.

	* function.c (expand_function_start): Properly store frame
	pointer for non-local goto.

diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 7387dad..b343bf8 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -1035,6 +1030,14 @@ emit_stack_save (enum save_level save_level, rtx *psave)
   do_pending_stack_adjust ();
   if (sa != 0)
     sa = validize_mem (sa);
+  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
+  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
+    {
+      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
+		  && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
+		  && mode == Pmode);
+      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0); 
+    }
   emit_insn (fcn (sa, stack_pointer_rtx));
 }
 
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 30cc9ff..47fd5b7 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -4779,7 +4779,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
 		       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
-      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
+      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);
 
       emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());
       update_nonlocal_goto_save_area ();

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:

> We are very inconsistent when saving and restoring non-local goto save 
> area.  See:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48016
> 
> for detailed analysis.  OK for trunk?
> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
> +    {
> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
> +		  && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
> +		  && mode == Pmode);
> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0); 
> +    }

That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs 
that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should 
be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.


Ciao,
Michael.

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> We are very inconsistent when saving and restoring non-local goto save
>> area.  See:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48016
>>
>> for detailed analysis.  OK for trunk?
>> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
>> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
>> +    {
>> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
>> +               && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
>> +               && mode == Pmode);
>> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0);
>> +    }
>
> That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs
> that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should
> be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.
>

I don't know update_nonlocal_goto_save_area enough to fix it
without breaking other targets.  This patch is the lest invasive.
Any suggestions how to properly fix it is appreciated.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> >> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
>> >> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
>> >> +    {
>> >> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
>> >> +               && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
>> >> +               && mode == Pmode);
>> >> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0);
>> >> +    }
>> >
>> > That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs
>> > that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should
>> > be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know update_nonlocal_goto_save_area enough to fix it
>> without breaking other targets.  This patch is the lest invasive.
>> Any suggestions how to properly fix it is appreciated.
>
> Well, the most obvious variant would be to move the above code right
> before the call of emit_stack_save in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area
> (using r_save and STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE (SAVE_NONLOCAL)).  All other callers
> of emit_stack_save already make sure to pass an object of correct mode, so
> this one should too.
>
> But I think it's better to just produce a correct array_ref from the
> start.  get_nl_goto_field creates an array_type for the
> nonlocal_goto_save_area of correct type (ptr_type_node or
> lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (Pmode, 1)), and we should use that.
>
> So something like this in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area:
>  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
>                   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
>                   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>                   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>
> instead of the current building of t_save.  Then r_save also should get
> the correct mode automatically.
>

Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk?

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.
---
2011-06-15  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/48016
	* explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
	for stack save area.

	* function.c (expand_function_start): Properly store frame
	pointer for non-local goto.

[-- Attachment #2: gcc-x32-pr48016-2.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1482 bytes --]

2011-06-15  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/48016
	* explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
	for stack save area.

	* function.c (expand_function_start): Properly store frame
	pointer for non-local goto.

diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index c7d8183..efe6c7e 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -1102,7 +1097,9 @@ update_nonlocal_goto_save_area (void)
      first one is used for the frame pointer save; the rest are sized by
      STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE.  Create a reference to array index 1, the first
      of the stack save area slots.  */
-  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF, ptr_type_node, cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
+  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
+		   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
+		   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
   r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
 
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 81c4d39..131bc09 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -4780,7 +4780,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
 		       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
-      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
+      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);
 
       emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());
       update_nonlocal_goto_save_area ();

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[Richard Guenther]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> >> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
>>> >> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
>>> >> +    {
>>> >> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
>>> >> +               && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
>>> >> +               && mode == Pmode);
>>> >> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0);
>>> >> +    }
>>> >
>>> > That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs
>>> > that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should
>>> > be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I don't know update_nonlocal_goto_save_area enough to fix it
>>> without breaking other targets.  This patch is the lest invasive.
>>> Any suggestions how to properly fix it is appreciated.
>>
>> Well, the most obvious variant would be to move the above code right
>> before the call of emit_stack_save in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area
>> (using r_save and STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE (SAVE_NONLOCAL)).  All other callers
>> of emit_stack_save already make sure to pass an object of correct mode, so
>> this one should too.
>>
>> But I think it's better to just produce a correct array_ref from the
>> start.  get_nl_goto_field creates an array_type for the
>> nonlocal_goto_save_area of correct type (ptr_type_node or
>> lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (Pmode, 1)), and we should use that.
>>
>> So something like this in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area:
>>  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
>>                   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
>>                   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>>                   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>>
>> instead of the current building of t_save.  Then r_save also should get
>> the correct mode automatically.
>>
>
> Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk?

The explow.c change is ok.  For the function.c change I wonder why
convert_memory_address doesn't do the right thing - from it's documentation
it definitely should, so it should be fixed instead of being replaced by
adjust_address with a zero offset.

Richard.

> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.
> ---
> 2011-06-15  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>
>        PR middle-end/48016
>        * explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
>        for stack save area.
>
>        * function.c (expand_function_start): Properly store frame
>        pointer for non-local goto.
>

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
>>>> >> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
>>>> >> +    {
>>>> >> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
>>>> >> +               && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
>>>> >> +               && mode == Pmode);
>>>> >> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0);
>>>> >> +    }
>>>> >
>>>> > That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs
>>>> > that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should
>>>> > be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I don't know update_nonlocal_goto_save_area enough to fix it
>>>> without breaking other targets.  This patch is the lest invasive.
>>>> Any suggestions how to properly fix it is appreciated.
>>>
>>> Well, the most obvious variant would be to move the above code right
>>> before the call of emit_stack_save in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area
>>> (using r_save and STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE (SAVE_NONLOCAL)).  All other callers
>>> of emit_stack_save already make sure to pass an object of correct mode, so
>>> this one should too.
>>>
>>> But I think it's better to just produce a correct array_ref from the
>>> start.  get_nl_goto_field creates an array_type for the
>>> nonlocal_goto_save_area of correct type (ptr_type_node or
>>> lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (Pmode, 1)), and we should use that.
>>>
>>> So something like this in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area:
>>>  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
>>>                   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
>>>                   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>>>                   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>>>
>>> instead of the current building of t_save.  Then r_save also should get
>>> the correct mode automatically.
>>>
>>
>> Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk?
>
> The explow.c change is ok.  For the function.c change I wonder why
> convert_memory_address doesn't do the right thing - from it's documentation
> it definitely should, so it should be fixed instead of being replaced by
> adjust_address with a zero offset.
>

convert_memory_address may return a pseudo register converted
to Pmode.  But here what we want is the same memory address
adjusted for Pmode.  I don't think the usage of convert_memory_address


-- 
H.J.

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
>>>>> >> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
>>>>> >> +    {
>>>>> >> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
>>>>> >> +               && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
>>>>> >> +               && mode == Pmode);
>>>>> >> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0);
>>>>> >> +    }
>>>>> >
>>>>> > That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs
>>>>> > that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should
>>>>> > be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know update_nonlocal_goto_save_area enough to fix it
>>>>> without breaking other targets.  This patch is the lest invasive.
>>>>> Any suggestions how to properly fix it is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the most obvious variant would be to move the above code right
>>>> before the call of emit_stack_save in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area
>>>> (using r_save and STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE (SAVE_NONLOCAL)).  All other callers
>>>> of emit_stack_save already make sure to pass an object of correct mode, so
>>>> this one should too.
>>>>
>>>> But I think it's better to just produce a correct array_ref from the
>>>> start.  get_nl_goto_field creates an array_type for the
>>>> nonlocal_goto_save_area of correct type (ptr_type_node or
>>>> lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (Pmode, 1)), and we should use that.
>>>>
>>>> So something like this in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area:
>>>>  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
>>>>                   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
>>>>                   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>>>>                   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>>>>
>>>> instead of the current building of t_save.  Then r_save also should get
>>>> the correct mode automatically.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk?
>>
>> The explow.c change is ok.  For the function.c change I wonder why
>> convert_memory_address doesn't do the right thing - from it's documentation
>> it definitely should, so it should be fixed instead of being replaced by
>> adjust_address with a zero offset.
>>
>
> convert_memory_address may return a pseudo register converted
> to Pmode.  But here what we want is the same memory address
> adjusted for Pmode.  I don't think the usage of convert_memory_address
>

Here is the code in question:

      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);

      emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());

R_SAVE must be lvalue.  But return from convert_memory_address
isn't. I am re-posting my patch here.  OK for trunk?

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.
---
2011-06-15  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/48016
	* explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
	for stack save area.

	* function.c (expand_function_start): Properly store frame
	pointer for non-local goto.

diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index c7d8183..efe6c7e 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -1102,7 +1097,9 @@ update_nonlocal_goto_save_area (void)
      first one is used for the frame pointer save; the rest are sized by
      STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE.  Create a reference to array index 1, the first
      of the stack save area slots.  */
-  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF, ptr_type_node, cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
+  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
+		   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
+		   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
   r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);

diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 81c4d39..131bc09 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -4780,7 +4780,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
 		       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
-      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
+      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);

       emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());
       update_nonlocal_goto_save_area ();

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

Ping.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:06 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >> +  /* FIXME: update_nonlocal_goto_save_area may pass SA in the wrong mode.  */
>>>>>> >> +  if (GET_MODE (sa) != mode)
>>>>>> >> +    {
>>>>>> >> +      gcc_assert (ptr_mode != Pmode
>>>>>> >> +               && GET_MODE (sa) == ptr_mode
>>>>>> >> +               && mode == Pmode);
>>>>>> >> +      sa = adjust_address (sa, mode, 0);
>>>>>> >> +    }
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > That may be appropriate for a branch, but trunk shouldn't contain FIXMEs
>>>>>> > that explain how something should be fixed, instead that something should
>>>>>> > be carried out.  I.e. just fix update_nonlocal_goto_save_area.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know update_nonlocal_goto_save_area enough to fix it
>>>>>> without breaking other targets.  This patch is the lest invasive.
>>>>>> Any suggestions how to properly fix it is appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the most obvious variant would be to move the above code right
>>>>> before the call of emit_stack_save in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area
>>>>> (using r_save and STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE (SAVE_NONLOCAL)).  All other callers
>>>>> of emit_stack_save already make sure to pass an object of correct mode, so
>>>>> this one should too.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I think it's better to just produce a correct array_ref from the
>>>>> start.  get_nl_goto_field creates an array_type for the
>>>>> nonlocal_goto_save_area of correct type (ptr_type_node or
>>>>> lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (Pmode, 1)), and we should use that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So something like this in update_nonlocal_goto_save_area:
>>>>>  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
>>>>>                   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
>>>>>                   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>>>>>                   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>>>>>
>>>>> instead of the current building of t_save.  Then r_save also should get
>>>>> the correct mode automatically.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> The explow.c change is ok.  For the function.c change I wonder why
>>> convert_memory_address doesn't do the right thing - from it's documentation
>>> it definitely should, so it should be fixed instead of being replaced by
>>> adjust_address with a zero offset.
>>>
>>
>> convert_memory_address may return a pseudo register converted
>> to Pmode.  But here what we want is the same memory address
>> adjusted for Pmode.  I don't think the usage of convert_memory_address
>>
>
> Here is the code in question:
>
>      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
>
>      emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());
>
> R_SAVE must be lvalue.  But return from convert_memory_address
> isn't. I am re-posting my patch here.  OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.
> ---
> 2011-06-15  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>
>        PR middle-end/48016
>        * explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
>        for stack save area.
>
>        * function.c (expand_function_start): Properly store frame
>        pointer for non-local goto.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
> index c7d8183..efe6c7e 100644
> --- a/gcc/explow.c
> +++ b/gcc/explow.c
> @@ -1102,7 +1097,9 @@ update_nonlocal_goto_save_area (void)
>      first one is used for the frame pointer save; the rest are sized by
>      STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE.  Create a reference to array index 1, the first
>      of the stack save area slots.  */
> -  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF, ptr_type_node, cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
> +  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
> +                  TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
> +                  cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>                   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>   r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
>
> diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
> index 81c4d39..131bc09 100644
> --- a/gcc/function.c
> +++ b/gcc/function.c
> @@ -4780,7 +4780,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
>                       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>                       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
> -      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
> +      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);
>
>       emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());
>       update_nonlocal_goto_save_area ();
>



-- 
H.J.

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[Michael Matz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1183 bytes --]

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
> > index 81c4d39..131bc09 100644
> > --- a/gcc/function.c
> > +++ b/gcc/function.c
> > @@ -4780,7 +4780,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
> >                       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
> >                       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
> >       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
> > -      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
> > +      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);

This is actually the same problem as in explow.c.  t_save is built with 
ptr_type_node, where it should have been using
  TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area))

Then r_save should have the correct mode already, possibly this could be 
asserted.  You are right that r_save needs to correspond to the 
nonlocal_goto_save_area[0] array-ref, hence pseudos aren't okay, therefore 
convert_memory_address isn't.  Actually I think we might even want to 
assert that indeed the expanded r_save is of Pmode already.


Ciao,
Michael.

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[H.J. Lu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1508 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
>> > index 81c4d39..131bc09 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/function.c
>> > +++ b/gcc/function.c
>> > @@ -4780,7 +4780,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
>> >                       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>> >                       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>> >       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
>> > -      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
>> > +      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);
>
> This is actually the same problem as in explow.c.  t_save is built with
> ptr_type_node, where it should have been using
>  TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area))
>
> Then r_save should have the correct mode already, possibly this could be
> asserted.  You are right that r_save needs to correspond to the
> nonlocal_goto_save_area[0] array-ref, hence pseudos aren't okay, therefore
> convert_memory_address isn't.  Actually I think we might even want to
> assert that indeed the expanded r_save is of Pmode already.
>
>

This patch works for me.  OK for trunk if there are no regressions?

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.
---
2011-06-30  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/48016
	* explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
	for stack save area.
	* function.c (expand_function_start): Likewise.

[-- Attachment #2: gcc-x32-pr48016-3.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1648 bytes --]

2011-06-30  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/48016
	* explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
	for stack save area.
	* function.c (expand_function_start): Likewise.

diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index c7d8183..efe6c7e 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -1102,7 +1097,9 @@ update_nonlocal_goto_save_area (void)
      first one is used for the frame pointer save; the rest are sized by
      STACK_SAVEAREA_MODE.  Create a reference to array index 1, the first
      of the stack save area slots.  */
-  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF, ptr_type_node, cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
+  t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
+		   TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
+		   cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		   integer_one_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
   r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
 
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 5be018a..0b2f5aa 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -4782,11 +4782,12 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
       if (!DECL_RTL_SET_P (var))
 	expand_decl (var);
 
-      t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF, ptr_type_node,
+      t_save = build4 (ARRAY_REF,
+		       TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area)),
 		       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
 		       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
-      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
+      gcc_assert (GET_MODE (r_save) == Pmode);
 
       emit_move_insn (r_save, targetm.builtin_setjmp_frame_value ());
       update_nonlocal_goto_save_area ();

Re: PATCH [5/n]: Prepare x32: PR middle-end/48016: Inconsistency in non-local goto save area

[Richard Guenther]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:05 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> > diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
>>> > index 81c4d39..131bc09 100644
>>> > --- a/gcc/function.c
>>> > +++ b/gcc/function.c
>>> > @@ -4780,7 +4780,7 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
>>> >                       cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area,
>>> >                       integer_zero_node, NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
>>> >       r_save = expand_expr (t_save, NULL_RTX, VOIDmode, EXPAND_WRITE);
>>> > -      r_save = convert_memory_address (Pmode, r_save);
>>> > +      r_save = adjust_address (r_save, Pmode, 0);
>>
>> This is actually the same problem as in explow.c.  t_save is built with
>> ptr_type_node, where it should have been using
>>  TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cfun->nonlocal_goto_save_area))
>>
>> Then r_save should have the correct mode already, possibly this could be
>> asserted.  You are right that r_save needs to correspond to the
>> nonlocal_goto_save_area[0] array-ref, hence pseudos aren't okay, therefore
>> convert_memory_address isn't.  Actually I think we might even want to
>> assert that indeed the expanded r_save is of Pmode already.
>>
>>
>
> This patch works for me.  OK for trunk if there are no regressions?

Ok.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks.
>
>
> --
> H.J.
> ---
> 2011-06-30  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>
>        PR middle-end/48016
>        * explow.c (update_nonlocal_goto_save_area): Use proper mode
>        for stack save area.
>        * function.c (expand_function_start): Likewise.
>