From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61093 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2017 01:47:07 -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 61079 invoked by uid 89); 23 Feb 2017 01:47:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:87r32pl, valid_address_p X-HELO: mail-pg0-f67.google.com Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com (HELO mail-pg0-f67.google.com) (74.125.83.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:47:05 +0000 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id 1so2630321pgz.2 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:47:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=uyW4tFLVoVsdhpS8ncdcmTDfgy4pr1bepwuTOtnJwjY=; b=qm7sjMjvSgj9+Uif2nd0cz9erIgBCynKuoir2YzPXAR7h2PF/VhaOojiH7kngQ3pKP lHfh/i8CVSzrnvmrX8m07nxmmjTZbZinPKT6ptR1mnV89Q8d028XIGPnFAWHA5n445gy lvRcPFuAGwbbk74nYDGH9Ke7sFEhw6G3YFLCS+ZSjo3O4hvn5WJIxZz8Dbi1bs9lg7yd PJRR0UWWxGnxw3j5RF7kZUK61vCttZCpJKIUHmaL6TkUZLiEPMkHDk64wugz7ZE8LwlB amFkUhxgEN1jfo3J9YryKQG7tsdZG6DFgSUdY8Z2fCYc8bvSnHchKnsoZ17ZGKGeC2bJ J23g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kWP9YugyXI3g8haureUs7MsCDRdsQ4mSjRMVRnzfm51/VyynlakPfB82Zr7uoA5w== X-Received: by 10.99.232.5 with SMTP id s5mr45550022pgh.66.1487814424458; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from bubble.grove.modra.org (CPE-58-160-71-80.tyqh2.lon.bigpond.net.au. [58.160.71.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l72sm5810738pfi.93.2017.02.22.17.47.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:47:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by bubble.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3E57C12B5; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:16:59 +1030 (ACDT) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:49:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Vladimir Makarov , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR79584, lra ICE in base_to_reg Message-ID: <20170223014659.GM14945@bubble.grove.modra.org> References: <20170222202522.GK14945@bubble.grove.modra.org> <87r32pltj8.fsf@googlemail.com> <20170223011109.GL14945@bubble.grove.modra.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170223011109.GL14945@bubble.grove.modra.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg01422.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:41:09AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > lo_sum is indeed not valid for mem:SD. simplify_operand_subreg is > where the subreg disappears. Richard, doesn't the following say that lra is expecting to reload exactly the lo_sum address you seem to think it should not handle in process_address? /* We still can reload address and if the address is valid, we can remove subreg without reloading its inner memory. */ && valid_address_p (GET_MODE (subst), regno_reg_rtx [ira_class_hard_regs [base_reg_class (GET_MODE (subst), MEM_ADDR_SPACE (subst), ADDRESS, SCRATCH)][0]], MEM_ADDR_SPACE (subst)))) -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM