https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97073
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9389e3abc1fc4881f22c7376aae2dd650af2b792 commit r10-8804-g9389e3abc1fc4881f22c7376aae2dd650af2b792 Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Sun Sep 27 23:18:26 2020 +0200 optabs: Don't reuse target for multi-word expansions if it overlaps operand(s) [PR97073] The following testcase is miscompiled on i686-linux, because we try to expand a double-word bitwise logic operation with op0 being a (mem:DI u) and target (mem:DI u+4), i.e. partial overlap, and thus end up with: movl 4(%esp), %eax andl u, %eax movl %eax, u+4 ! movl u+4, %eax optimized out andl 8(%esp), %eax movl %eax, u+8 rather than with the desired: movl 4(%esp), %edx movl 8(%esp), %eax andl u, %edx andl u+4, %eax movl %eax, u+8 movl %edx, u+4 because the store of the first word to target overwrites the second word of the operand. expand_binop for this (and several similar places) already check for target == op0 or target == op1, this patch just adds reg_overlap_mentioned_p calls next to it. Pedantically, at least for some of these it might be sufficient to force a different target if there is overlap but target is not rtx_equal_p to the operand (e.g. in this bitwise logical case, but e.g. not in the shift cases where there is reordering), though that would go against the preexisting target == op? checks and the rationale that REG_EQUAL notes in that case isn't correct. 2020-09-27 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR middle-end/97073 * optabs.c (expand_binop, expand_absneg_bit, expand_unop, expand_copysign_bit): Check reg_overlap_mentioned_p between target and operand(s) and if it returns true, force a pseudo as target. * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr97073.c: New test. (cherry picked from commit a4b31d5807f2bc67c8999b3d53369cf2a5c6e1ec)
