Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:00:38AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> >> index 117999613d8..50943d76f79 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> >> @@ -14659,6 +14659,12 @@ print_operand_address (FILE *file, rtx x)
> >>    else if (SYMBOL_REF_P (x) || GET_CODE (x) == CONST
> >>  	   || GET_CODE (x) == LABEL_REF)
> >>      {
> >> +      if (this_is_asm_operands && !address_operand (x, VOIDmode))
> >
> > Do we really need this_is_asm_operands here?
> I understand your point: 
> since in function 'print_operand_address' which supports not only user
> asm code.  So, it maybe incorrect if 'x' is not an 'address_operand',
> no matter this_is_asm_operands.
> 
> Here, 'this_is_asm_operands' is needed because it would be treated as an
> user fault in asm-code (otherwise, internal_error in the compiler).

You almost never want to test for asm, and just give the same error you
would give in non-asm.  It is the same problem after all, and giving the
user the same error message is the most helpful thing to do!

It can be useful to not say "ICE", but it already is prevented from
doing that here.


Segher