From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 345D7385E83A; Tue, 14 May 2024 10:08:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 345D7385E83A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 345D7385E83A Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.51.188.92 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715681291; cv=none; b=tz+nUVVca7KwfUco8dxOPh4nQNmHQsF47hzey1/KV1Vmcg+O2wU0KvOaIv4MijapVPQv74vmWu67Lzfi4u/aCMU43ZODg6AUThLGhXgYHnXBh0XoeubHqrIHPdY9Exx9OgY6kNr/kqDXnwkczO8Cl0JgFNepj5nFos4wvD+gKrI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715681291; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nDXqDOUj8qzbLcS3xFpGfQUpmJXL5pUbfZ3YtdI/Yyk=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=rsclupTbLF/n0VA224SeQtk7opOxZwQjr8krzGZMQF3pnmOwA3wvjK5SQXiwp+yeaqS523/TuBl8Z529DUDT/bz/6USSb2NpeSciSSpM3pZLIvm4eLMKYzozXePYfaiP8GJSroNdUAWWnM4RCfox5zJN0iz1Y0UZVGcJeEXHKaM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s6oed-0001dn-0m; Tue, 14 May 2024 05:41:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 44E9P4xI008866; Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:56 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : references : date : in-reply-to : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=t4P9SNCBGEvD97DpgKJF7HbZSM3SuOjZT9OmhKrCEFs=; b=SFSNZ1fp4awsBPZPZ22VbEYpjMWqJjRTWJblxdglLo7sXI3vbeK5lnb59yC7mQ3Pld+G 0O3Tno7BajaCxwBurWuwQeSGq50O/Uz3VzTHsRLaxeM52BQwbElfKs9z1Tguc+BF7mI4 k2/m2qdN+1IjzA4/e3wFtWmL0e+9BA0pD/lxIQE9E9KgrB6ddTAnmIoKo6F/IIB2t2CQ Km7G9XV2vvfcjm39i/vRVFqUaeNDmGBot/fFPZ00o5U712RiJh78O+x0eHS2T2VHzzkU drOH9I0s+JjwdzEDTC8Icgml02hVhhM1a0JOsGBoaL2xFcyqp2zd7mabymAwq8ynBw+l Qw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y459b013v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:56 +0000 Received: from m0353725.ppops.net (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 44E9etZY032356; Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:55 GMT Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y459b013t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:55 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 44E7n0N6020367; Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:55 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.73]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y2kcyvtfk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:55 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.230]) by smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 44E9equ921561906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:54 GMT Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0945E5805F; Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA4258054; Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from genoa (unknown [9.40.192.157]) by smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 14 May 2024 09:40:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Jiufu Guo To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: "Kewen.Lin" , dje.gcc@gmail.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, bergner@linux.ibm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp References: <20240513025712.889169-1-guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> <20240514091123.GE19790@gate.crashing.org> Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:40:48 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20240514091123.GE19790@gate.crashing.org> (Segher Boessenkool's message of "Tue, 14 May 2024 04:11:23 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: tvNz3Uhwf8Q7Tw_3UYbVaMRASmNZpihk X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 9E-bZMCAdFAoCGTuDsG6-a2MRUG0Gm_J X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.650,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-05-14_04,2024-05-10_02,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2405010000 definitions=main-2405140067 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.158.5; envelope-from=guojiufu@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9,DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,DKIM_VALID=-0.1,DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_STOCKGEN,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi, Segher Boessenkool writes: > 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! Yes, just as Kewen's comments. The testing on 'this_is_asm_operands' and 'address_operand' is not in good place. The message emitting and it's checking chould be more straightforward, something like: /* emit error for user asm code, or fault in compiler. */ else if (TARGET_TOC) output_operand_lossage ("xxx"); I would update the patch for this. BR, Jeff(Jiufu) Guo > > It can be useful to not say "ICE", but it already is prevented from > doing that here. > > > Segher