Re: optimization/6162: gcc 3.0.4: certain i386 asm reloader ice

[Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/6162; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>,
	Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au>
Cc: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/6162: gcc 3.0.4: certain i386 asm reloader ice
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:09:20 +0100 (CET)

 Hi,
 
 On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
 
 > I know this is a regression, but:
 > * it's a subtle and difficult bug in reload, which may take a long time
 >   and a lot of work to find
 
 Well, to find it is quite easy.  reload is inherently incapable of
 handling more than one commutative operand, but there are two of them in
 the asm.  If you are unlucky both of them would need to be swapped to make
 the insn valid, and this is what breaks reload, as it only can swap the
 last pair.  I don't know why this constraint isn't documented, but anyway,
 that's the reason.
 
 To fix this indeed would be quite involved, as we would need to handle
 then all permutations of swappings (of which there are 4 with two pairs).
 Well, _I_ would fix this bug by documenting that behaviour.  Note, that
 also, if we get rid of reload, the functionality will likely not change in
 that respect.
 
 > * reload is intended to go away for 3.4
 
 On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Kevin Ryde wrote:
 
 > The second (simpler) example I posted does it without that.
 >
 > > I don't think it's reasonable to hold up 3.2.1 or 3.3 for this bug.
 >
 > As far as I can tell you have to be pretty lucky, or unlucky, to
 > actually strike it.  I've only had it two (or maybe three) times, and
 > not on finished code.
 
 Simply don't use more than one commutative pair, and you are safe (except
 if you really hit a bug of course ;-) )
 
 
 Ciao,
 Michael.