On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi! > > Apparently when fixing these issues earlier I've missed one spot with > gcc_unreachable () dependent on the value that could be provided by user > in bogus inline asm. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > 2017-02-28 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > PR target/79729 > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_print_operand) <case 'R'>: Replace > gcc_unreachable with output_operand_lossage. > > * gcc.target/i386/pr79729.c: New test.
OK. Thanks, Uros. > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2017-02-28 07:49:33.000000000 +0100 > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2017-02-28 07:56:38.536106025 +0100 > @@ -18228,7 +18228,8 @@ ix86_print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, i > fputs ("{rz-sae}", file); > break; > default: > - gcc_unreachable (); > + output_operand_lossage ("operand is not a specific integer, " > + "invalid operand code 'R'"); > } > > if (ASSEMBLER_DIALECT == ASM_ATT) > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr79729.c.jj 2017-02-28 07:58:11.168862088 > +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr79729.c 2017-02-28 07:58:31.401590388 > +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ > +/* PR target/79729 */ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > + > +void > +foo (int x) > +{ > + __asm__ volatile ("# %R0" : : "n" (129)); /* { dg-error "invalid > operand code" } */ > +} > > Jakub