Back in April 2011, Richard S. submitted the implementation of
internal functions [1]. It originally had this hunk of code:
if (code == SSA_NAME
&& (g = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (ssa_name))
- && gimple_code (g) == GIMPLE_CALL)
+ && gimple_code (g) == GIMPLE_CALL
+ && !gimple_call_internal_p (g))
pmode = promote_function_mode (type, mode, &unsignedp,
TREE_TYPE
(TREE_TYPE (gimple_call_fn (g))),
but the !gimple_call_internal_p (g) was turned into an assert. This patch
turns the assert back into a condition. That's because I actually hit that
assert with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow on PPC64, where we expand
internal
calls at expand time. On PPC64, integers are promoted to long when passed to
a function, that is why the assert doesn't trigger on x86_64.
There shouldn't be any harm in not calling promote_function_mode since internal
functions do not result in a call instruction.
I'm not attaching any new testcase, because that's not needed - we ICE on PPC64
with current testsuite.
Regtested/bootstrapped on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Ok for trunk?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00609.html
2013-12-09 Marek Polacek <[email protected]>
PR sanitizer/59399
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Remove assert dealing with
internal calls and turn that into a condition instead.
--- gcc/expr.c.mp2 2013-12-09 18:54:16.235624592 +0100
+++ gcc/expr.c 2013-12-09 18:55:03.580792572 +0100
@@ -9482,13 +9482,11 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx target
the same mode we got when the variable was declared. */
if (code == SSA_NAME
&& (g = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (ssa_name))
- && gimple_code (g) == GIMPLE_CALL)
- {
- gcc_assert (!gimple_call_internal_p (g));
- pmode = promote_function_mode (type, mode, &unsignedp,
- gimple_call_fntype (g),
- 2);
- }
+ && gimple_code (g) == GIMPLE_CALL
+ && !gimple_call_internal_p (g))
+ pmode = promote_function_mode (type, mode, &unsignedp,
+ gimple_call_fntype (g),
+ 2);
else
pmode = promote_decl_mode (exp, &unsignedp);
gcc_assert (GET_MODE (decl_rtl) == pmode);
Marek
