From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 90130 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2015 13:14:43 -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 90121 invoked by uid 89); 14 Mar 2015 13:14:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f43.google.com) (209.85.218.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 13:14:42 +0000 Received: by oiag65 with SMTP id g65so6700138oia.2 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:14:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.74.41 with SMTP id q9mr42465315oev.61.1426338880275; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.134.102 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:14:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150314130238.GD16488@bubble.grove.modra.org> References: <20150314130238.GD16488@bubble.grove.modra.org> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 13:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fix for PRs 36043, 58744 and 65408 From: "H.J. Lu" To: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2 On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > This is Richi's prototype patch in > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043#c23 with fixes for > blocks larger than one reg, big-endian, and BLOCK_REG_PADDING. > I also removed the operand_subword_force since we may as well let > narrow_bit_field_mem in extract_bit_field do that for us. It is > necessary to do the BLOCK_REG_PADDING shift after we've loaded the > block or else repeat the bit-field extraction in that case. > > Bootstrapped and regression tested (-m32 and -m64) x86_64-linux and > powerpc64-linux. OK to apply? > > I'll also throw together a testcase or three. For execute tests I'm > thinking of using sbrk to locate an odd sized struct such that access > past the end segfaults, rather than mmap/munmap as was done in the > pr36043 testcase. Does that sound reasonable? > > PR target/65408 > PR target/58744 > PR middle-end/36043 > * calls.c (load_register_parameters): Don't load past end of > mem unless suitably aligned. > Can you add a testcase in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 -- H.J.