From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-50654-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2304 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2002 09:12:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2297 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 09:12:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.ACT-Europe.FR) (212.157.227.154)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 09:12:22 -0000
Received: from berlin.int.act-europe.fr (berlin.act-europe.fr [212.157.227.169])
	by dublin.ACT-Europe.FR (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 344C9229F02; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:12:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from hainque@localhost)
	by berlin.int.act-europe.fr (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g3P9DPJ22369;
	Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:13:25 +0200
To: "John David Anglin" <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: PA specifies invalid T_ADAFLAGS
References: <200204250455.g3P4t7o1021391@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
From: Olivier Hainque <hainque@ACT-Europe.FR>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:47:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <200204250455.g3P4t7o1021391@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Message-ID: <kthem0dtu3.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01306.txt.bz2


"John David Anglin" <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> writes:

> Has the PA indexing situation been reviewed since the above patch was
> installed?

Perhaps a testcase exercised against the current 3.1 would help ...

IIUC, some constructs we have in Ada basically amount to the following kind of
behavior in C:


     #include <malloc.h>

     int lo ()
     {
       return 60000;
     }

     int
     main ()
     {
       volatile char c;

       char * b  = malloc (15);
       char * vb = b - lo();

       c = vb [lo()];

       return 0;
     }


 with 3.1 20020424 on pa-hpux, the O1 output without -mdisable-indexing reads:

        bl malloc,%r2
        ldi 15,%r26
        .CALL 
        bl lo,%r2
        copy %r28,%r4
        .CALL 
        bl lo,%r2
        sub %r4,%r28,%r4
        ldbx %r28(%r4),%r4   <=== Runtime fault here
        stb %r4,-120(%r30)

 
 This dumps core at the ldbx point because the space check is performed
 against r28 and not r28+r4.