This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.4/3.5 PATCH/RFA] Fix SH ICE with -O2 -fPIC (PR 15396)
- From: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>
- To: kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp (Kaz Kojima)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, joern dot rennecke at superh dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:07:13 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 PATCH/RFA] Fix SH ICE with -O2 -fPIC (PR 15396)
> For SH, LABEL_REF isn't permited by general_operand in PIC case
> and consttable_N insns use general_operand as checking function.
> The insn like
> (unspec_volatile [(label_ref 775)
> (const_int 0 [0x0])] UNSPECV_CONST4)
> which is generated by consttable_4 insn isn't recognized in PIC
> case because of this and it causes the ICE in PR target/15396.
> The attached patch fixes this. It bootstraps successfully on
> 3.4-branch with no regressions.
> I've got a similar error which this patch gets rid of in building
> glibc with current mainline + Joern's recent patches, though the
> testcase in PR itself doesn't fail on mainline and mainline fails
> for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu target when building libraries without
> Joern's patches.
> It also bootstraps with no regressions on mainline for sh4-linux
> with those patches.
> PR target/15396
> * config/sh/sh-protos.h (consttable_operand): Declare.
> * config/sh/sh.c (consttable_operand): New.
> * config/sh/sh.md (consttable_4): Use consttable_operand.
> (consttable_8): Likewise.
This is the wrong approach. putting the value of label into a a constant
in the text section is not PIC. Does the label address a switch table?
I've found a similar problem recently in our local sources. I've fixed it
by doing the mova fixup differently for PIC.
2004-05-27 J"orn Rennecke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* sh.c (dump_table): New argument start. Changed caller.
(fixup_mova): New function.
(find_barrier): Use it.
(sh_reorg): Likewise. Check for CODE_FOR_casesi_worker_2.
* sh.md (*casesi_worker): Rename to:
(casesi_worker_2): New insn.
This is just one of several dozen patches whose merge has been held up
by PR 15521.
I had hoped we can avoid this, but it seems I have to create a branch
for SH support in gcc 3.5 .