On 8 December 2017 at 17:05, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> writes:
>> Hi Richard,
>> On 7 December 2017 at 10:31, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com>
>> wrote>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:57:37PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>> Three related regression fixes:
>>>>
>>>> - We can't use asserts like:
>>>>
>>>> gcc_assert (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) == 16);
>>>>
>>>> in aarch64_print_operand because it could trigger for invalid user input.
>>>>
>>>> - The output_operand_lossage in aarch64_print_address_internal:
>>>>
>>>> output_operand_lossage ("invalid operand for '%%%c'", op);
>>>>
>>>> wasn't right because "op" is an rtx_code enum rather than the
>>>> prefix character.
>>>>
>>>> - aarch64_print_operand_address shouldn't call output_operand_lossage
>>>> (because it doesn't have a prefix code) but instead fall back to
>>>> output_addr_const.
>>>>
>>>> Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-12-05 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> gcc/
>>>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_print_address_internal): Return
>>>> a bool success value. Don't call output_operand_lossage here.
>>>> (aarch64_print_ldpstp_address): Return a bool success value.
>>>> (aarch64_print_operand_address): Call output_addr_const if
>>>> aarch64_print_address_internal fails.
>>>> (aarch64_print_operand): Don't assert that the mode is 16 bytes for
>>>> 'y'; call output_operand_lossage instead. Call
>>>> output_operand_lossage
>>>> if aarch64_print_ldpstp_address fails.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/asm-2.c: New test.
>>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/asm-3.c: Likewise.
>>>>
>>
>> The new test gcc.target/aarch64/asm-2.c ICEs when compiled with -mabi=ilp32:
>>
>> /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/asm-2.c: In function 'f':
>> /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/asm-2.c:10:1: internal compiler
>> error: in aarch64_print_address_internal, at
>> config/aarch64/aarch64.c:5636
>> 0xf2afd3 aarch64_print_address_internal
>> /gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c:5636
>> 0xf2affd aarch64_print_operand_address
>> /gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c:5733
>> 0x7fdd43 output_address(machine_mode, rtx_def*)
>> /gcc/final.c:3913
>> 0x801288 output_asm_insn(char const*, rtx_def**)
>> /gcc/final.c:3770
>> 0x802437 final_scan_insn(rtx_insn*, _IO_FILE*, int, int, int*)
>> /gcc/final.c:2673
>> 0x802a1a final(rtx_insn*, _IO_FILE*, int)
>> /gcc/final.c:2052
>> 0x8035ab rest_of_handle_final
>> /gcc/final.c:4498
>> 0x8035ab execute
>> /gcc/final.c:4572
>>
>> Can you check?
>
> I think that's a separate preexisting problem. Could you file a PR?
>
Sure, I filed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
> Personally I'd just remove the assert, but I'm guessing that wouldn't
> be acceptable...
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
