"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The testcase shows -O -mx32 -maddress-mode=long -fPIC -S generates;
>>
>> x.i:22:37: internal compiler error: in plus_constant, at explow.c:88
>> info[0x6ffffeff - dyn->d_tag + 12] = dyn;
>>
>> expand_expr_real_2 has
>>
>> /* No sense saving up arithmetic to be done
>> if it's all in the wrong mode to form part of an address.
>> And force_operand won't know whether to sign-extend or
>> zero-extend. */
>> if ((modifier != EXPAND_SUM && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER)
>> || mode != ptr_mode)
>>
>> With mode == SImode, Pmode == DImode and ptr_mode == SImode, we
>> generate wrong address. Instead of zero-extending address
>> 0xf7ffdd64, we sign-extend it to 0xfffffffff7ffdd64. This patch
>> checks Pmode instead of ptr_mode for address mode. It fixes the testcase
>> and generates a working x32 glibc. Is this patch correct?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> H.J.
>> ---
>> gcc/
>>
>> 2012-11-03 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com>
>>
>> PR middle-end/55142
>> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_2): Check Pmode instead of ptr_mode
>> for wrong address mode.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>>
>> 2012-11-03 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com>
>>
>> PR middle-end/55142
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr55142.c: New file.
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
>> index 0ad3b57..1600380 100644
>> --- a/gcc/expr.c
>> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
>> @@ -8290,7 +8290,7 @@ expand_expr_real_2 (sepops ops, rtx target, enum
>> machine_mode tmode,
>> And force_operand won't know whether to sign-extend or
>> zero-extend. */
>> if ((modifier != EXPAND_SUM && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER)
>> - || mode != ptr_mode)
>> + || mode != Pmode)
>> {
>> expand_operands (treeop0, treeop1,
>> subtarget, &op0, &op1, EXPAND_NORMAL);
>> @@ -8333,7 +8333,7 @@ expand_expr_real_2 (sepops ops, rtx target, enum
>> machine_mode tmode,
>> And force_operand won't know whether to sign-extend or
>> zero-extend. */
>> if ((modifier != EXPAND_SUM && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER)
>> - || mode != ptr_mode)
>> + || mode != Pmode)
>> goto binop;
>>
>> expand_operands (treeop0, treeop1,
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr55142.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr55142.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..c8a9625
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr55142.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! { ia32 } } } } */
>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target fpic } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mx32 -maddress-mode=long -fpic" } */
>> +
>> +typedef int int32_t;
>> +typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
>> +typedef int32_t Elf32_Sword;
>> +typedef struct
>> +{
>> + Elf32_Sword d_tag;
>> +} Elf32_Dyn;
>> +struct link_map
>> +{
>> + Elf32_Dyn *l_ld;
>> + Elf32_Dyn *l_info[34];
>> +};
>> +extern struct link_map _dl_rtld_map __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
>> +static void elf_get_dynamic_info (struct link_map *l)
>> +{
>> + Elf32_Dyn *dyn = l->l_ld;
>> + Elf32_Dyn **info;
>> + info = l->l_info;
>> + while (dyn->d_tag != 0)
>> + {
>> + if ((uint32_t) (0x6ffffeff - dyn->d_tag) < 11)
>> + info[0x6ffffeff - dyn->d_tag + 12] = dyn;
>> + ++dyn;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +void
>> +foo (void)
>> +{
>> + elf_get_dynamic_info (&_dl_rtld_map);
>> +}
>
> Any comments? I'd like to get it fixed for 4.8.
I can't approve this anyway, but the existing ptr_mode sounds right for
EXPAND_INTIALIZER. I assume it would be for EXPAND_SUM too, although
I've always been a bit unsure what that means.
> This patch only impacts targets with Pmode != ptr_mode. Richard, can
> you take a look at this for mips?
MIPS isn't affected FWIW. Having Pmode != ptr_mode was just a temporary
experiment on the 3.4 rewrite branch.
Richard
