[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-11-22 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-31 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Tue Oct 31 09:49:40 2017 New Revision: 254252 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254252&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Subject: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix crash with big stack clash interval (PR

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-30 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Cool. I've got systems here that are primed for testing, so if you could pass the patch along I can do spins fairly easily.

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-30 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|law at

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-27 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- True that 64k may be interesting because of pagesize considerations. But I'm not sure how to make it work reliably on ppc because I'm not aware of another scratch register we can use if we have that large o

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-27 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yeah. The only problem is 64kB is actually an interesting case to support, since that is the page size on modern systems :-(

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-27 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So while fixing the expander that allocates dynamic space is easy. Fixing the other cases is harder, particularly since we need another scratch. Given it's always been expected that the probing internval m

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-24 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Right, but it's the expander to allocate dynamic space that's creating the bogus RTL. It's a trivial fix that I just need to run through some testing.

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-24 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 --- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner --- That offset is too large to fit in the stdu immed field, so it really shouldn't have been accepted by the rs6000_legitim*_ functions.

[Bug target/82674] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection

2017-10-23 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|