From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 999 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2016 13:24:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 604 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2016 13:24:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:990 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:24:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BF9E811A2; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-113-22.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.22]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u34DOm4C011155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:24:49 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u34DOjT1013516; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:24:46 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u34DOieY013515; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:24:44 +0200 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:24:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, iant@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1 Message-ID: <20160404132444.GE19207@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20160404130617.GD19207@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 02:56:51PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > The testcase gcc.target/i386/pr37870.c will already ICE with that > > > patch, so no additional testcase. > > > > In theory you could validate_subreg first and use that code if validation > > went ok, otherwise go through memory. > > But I admit I don't have anything in particular in mind where it would > > trigger this code and the subreg would successfully validate. > > Not sure if it would help as that has > > /* ??? Similarly, e.g. with (subreg:DF (reg:TI)). Though > store_bit_field > is the culprit here, and not the backends. */ > else if (osize >= UNITS_PER_WORD && isize >= osize) > ; > > and thus we'd return true anyway for (subreg:XF (reg:TI) 0) If XFmode subreg of TImode reg passes validation, where does it ICE then? Jakub