From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D631F3870C04; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D631F3870C04 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org D631F3870C04 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715655650; cv=none; b=Gi6ZyVoxbTqnolG17p7RjyXUdgZlk2HxIn0YBYyD/j33YQf74FZmXjEEzm2VD8VilrgsdQxJ3ImLtIwaq0ijEOWmFqvp9AkVd2CtmiyQJC1V1nJkXMzK8DfR2WRi66rD7vLw9ghite9rsDtbMCv72kncJ84xL2yJ6+38jFa3Mg8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715655650; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qqoZAUEnHvw98BDeUPKnvcuk9cXWHnQ0chh1yyoGXIo=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=lcWDM8E8G44zVRpbv5SMxAk7RAoI4u594clurXWoilHCRUJoCO/whip+NpNyhxJPMcAaHlYPgeuV+ZRmzzYbbLDIjlvUFWGQZBq0HdVtEsVh/4/mYjOhpyW2c/O8AGi7ui4BnfMrOCl4u34oF4vzzLt80iGyQs+0c7CRg3tSC0c= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0353724.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 44E2boQs032602; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:47 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=RcI2bjfkRod0CM/UTE8tYu5US3BkAIlLZDZFH17ctCU=; b=io7mKpEnohnzdL+xNuCwleU5K+04H6AcCo+Gf6jSM/wz/tB02HNMh77LJ9OX0Hfw6o2g UNgWk0AzWfzuevGl9ttfcx5mu2yiViYByQd7LnB/OPHkT14HRy+cxb9OvIFjE9fbTi3f e2e86oUTvcAMZ7K81dwUsvwMUUDWHSKaCrptFaW/1X4LdR1n581JkDPVkIFot9nHwVmi giKTYnO/MhkEAHTUr9Ia15T9wKi0iHnQruoNVYnEfYHzR9ktbzJH9QW0P+85vjdZsx2b DmFPWq8baIwnA1zcRRtNxuzciyY95D8d6BYsJ7WQNAmMyW9d2E9jVTCndJAQO0aZw1mi 5w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y3w2m8av1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:46 +0000 Received: from m0353724.ppops.net (m0353724.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 44E30kJ7003591; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:46 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y3w2m8auy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:46 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 44E2dcfe005721; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:45 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.73]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3y2nq2jn5x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:45 +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 44E30gah25952764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:44 GMT Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264BF58089; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50405805F; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from genoa (unknown [9.40.192.157]) by smtpav03.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 14 May 2024 03:00:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Jiufu Guo To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: segher@kernel.crashing.org, 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> Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:00:38 +0800 In-Reply-To: (Kewen Lin's message of "Mon, 13 May 2024 14:27:23 +0800") 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-ORIG-GUID: Tva_eK5P23NuUScv0RzIOrB3PyU0K7dN X-Proofpoint-GUID: qRkLTwz0d8qJ41bP1jNusG_Ew5iz6gts 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=2024-05-13_17,2024-05-10_02,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2405010000 definitions=main-2405140020 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_SHORT,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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, Thanks a lot for your helpful review! "Kewen.Lin" writes: > Hi, > > on 2024/5/13 10:57, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires >> an address operand, while the operand is with the constraint "X" which >> allow non-address form. An error message would be reported to indicate >> the invalid asm operands. >> >> Bootstrap®test pass on ppc64{,le}. >> Is this ok for trunk? >> >> BR, >> Jeff(Jiufu Guo) >> >> PR target/96866 >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (print_operand_address): >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c: New test. >> >> --- >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 6 ++++++ >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c | 10 ++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >> >> 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). I notice one thing: As what we need is emitting error for printing address if the address can not be access directly. So it would be better to emit message through 'output_operand_lossage' just befor gcc_assert(TARGET_TOC). Thanks a lot for your insight comment! > >> + { >> + output_operand_lossage ("invalid expression as operand"); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> output_addr_const (file, x); >> if (small_data_operand (x, GET_MODE (x))) >> fprintf (file, "@%s(%s)", SMALL_DATA_RELOC, >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..6554a472a11 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ >> +/* It's to verify no ICE here, ignore error messages about invalid 'asm'. */ >> +/* { dg-excess-errors "pr96866-2.c" } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-fPIC -O2" } */ > > Nit: If these two options are required, it would be good to have a comment explaining it a bit > when it's not obvious. Good suggestion, thanks! > >> + >> +int x[2]; >> + >> +int __attribute__ ((noipa)) >> +f1 (void) >> +{ >> + int n; >> + int *p = x; >> + *p++; >> + __asm__ volatile("ld %0, %a1" : "=r"(n) : "X"(p)); >> + return n; >> +} >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..a5ec96f29dd >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ >> +/* It's to verify no ICE here, ignore error messages about invalid 'asm'. */ >> +/* { dg-excess-errors "pr96866-2.c" } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-fPIC -O2" } */ > > Ditto. Thanks! BR, Jeff(Jiufu) Guo > > BR, > Kewen > >> + >> +void >> +f (void) >> +{ >> + extern int x; >> + __asm__ volatile("#%a0" ::"X"(&x)); >> +}