[Bug middle-end/80270] [9/10/11/12 Regression ICE in extract_bit_field_1 at gcc/expmed.c:1798
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|9.5 |12.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Roger Sayle --- This should now be fixed on mainline.
[Bug middle-end/80270] [9/10/11/12 Regression ICE in extract_bit_field_1 at gcc/expmed.c:1798
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7e5c6edeb1b2339e10f10bee270e61dbad985800 commit r12-7416-g7e5c6edeb1b2339e10f10bee270e61dbad985800 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Mon Feb 28 22:26:43 2022 + PR middle-end/80270: ICE in extract_bit_field_1 This patch fixes PR middle-end/80270, an ICE-on-valid regression, where performing a bitfield extraction on a variable explicitly stored in a hard register by the user causes a segmentation fault during RTL expansion. Nearly identical source code without the "asm" qualifier compiles fine. The point of divergence is in simplify_gen_subreg which tries to avoid creating non-trivial SUBREGs of hard registers, to avoid problems during register allocation. This suggests the simple solution proposed here, to copy hard registers to a new pseudo in extract_integral_bit_field, just before calling simplify_gen_subreg. 2022-02-28 Roger Sayle Eric Botcazou gcc/ChangeLog PR middle-end/80270 * expmed.cc (extract_integral_bit_field): If OP0 is a hard register, copy it to a pseudo before calling simplify_gen_subreg. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog * gcc.target/i386/pr80270.c: New test case.
[Bug middle-end/80270] [9/10/11/12 Regression ICE in extract_bit_field_1 at gcc/expmed.c:1798
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com --- Comment #6 from Roger Sayle --- Patch proposed. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590952.html
[Bug middle-end/80270] [9/10/11/12 Regression ICE in extract_bit_field_1 at gcc/expmed.c:1798
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE in extract_bit_field_1 |[9/10/11/12 Regression ICE |at gcc/expmed.c:1798|in extract_bit_field_1 at ||gcc/expmed.c:1798 Target Milestone|--- |9.5 See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=80173 Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Related to PR 80173. The difference between that bug and this one is simple: b.s2f1.s1f[i]; vs b.s2f1.s1f[3];
