This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IRA is not looking into the predicates ?
- From: Mohamed Shafi <shafitvm at gmail dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:12:49 +0530
- Subject: Re: IRA is not looking into the predicates ?
- References: <ba0bd44d0910300613x2054ad04yd3613ae815317135@mail.gmail.com> <mcrd4446fu3.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>
2009/10/30 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>:
> Mohamed Shafi <shafitvm@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>From ice4.c.168r.asmcons
>>
>> (insn 5 2 6 2 ice4.c:4 (set (reg:SI 61 [ s ])
>> ? ? ? ? (mem/c/i:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("s") [flags 0x2] <var_decl
>> 0xb7bfd000 s>) [0 s+0 S4 A32])) 2 {*movsi_internal} (nil))
>>
>> (insn 6 5 7 2 ice4.c:4 (set (reg:QI 62)
>> ? ? ? ? (plus:QI (subreg:QI (reg:SI 61 [ s ]) 0)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? (const_int -100 [0xffffff9c]))) 16 {addqi3}
>> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 61 [ s ])
>> ? ? ? ? (nil)))
>>
>> How can i prevent this ICE ?
>
> If asmcons is the first place that this appears, then I think it must
> be coming from some asm statement. ?So the first step would be to look
> at the asm statement and see if it can be rewritten using a different
> constraint.
>
No this appears from the rtl expand onwards.
Shafi