On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:26:12PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:12:36AM -0500, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > diff --git a/gcc/lra-constraints.c b/gcc/lra-constraints.c
> > index 76e3ff7efe6..feff766c590 100644
> > --- a/gcc/lra-constraints.c
> > +++ b/gcc/lra-constraints.c
> > @@ -3452,6 +3452,10 @@ process_address_1 (int nop, bool check_only_p,
> >
> > constraint
> > = skip_contraint_modifiers (curr_static_id->operand[nop].constraint);
> > + if ('0' <= constraint[0] && constraint[0] <= '9')
>
> Yoda conditions?
We have IN_RANGE (constraint[0], '0', '9') for this.
> Anyway, more importantly, the docs say:
> If multiple
> digits are encountered consecutively, they are interpreted as a
> single decimal integer. There is scant chance for ambiguity, since
> to-date it has never been desirable that '10' be interpreted as
> matching either operand 1 _or_ operand 0. Should this be desired,
> one can use multiple alternatives instead.
> so, doesn't this need to use
> {
> char **end;
> unsigned long dup = strtoul (constraint, &end, 10);
> constraint
> = skip_constraint_modifiers (curr_static_id_operand[dup].constraint);
> }
> instead?
> Otherwise, if you have (even large) testcase that misbehaves with 0-9
> dups, it should be possible to create one with 10-30?
>
> > + constraint
> > + = skip_contraint_modifiers (curr_static_id->operand
> > + [constraint[0] - '0'].constraint);
> > cn = lookup_constraint (constraint);
> > if (insn_extra_address_constraint (cn)
> > /* When we find an asm operand with an address constraint that
>
>
> Jakub
>
Marek
