This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [AArch64] Fix predicate and constraint mismatch in logical atomic operations


On 16 June 2015 at 10:20, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 15 June 2015 at 14:16, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2015 at 12:42, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Shawcroft
>>> <marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 September 2014 04:45, Michael Collison
>>>> <michael.collison@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>> On certain patterns in atomics.md the constraint 'n' is used in combination
>>>>> with the predicate atomic_op_operand. The constraint is too general and
>>>>> allows constants that are disallowed by the predicate. This causes an ICE In
>>>>> final_scan_insn when the insn cannot be split because the constraint and
>>>>> predicate do not match.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested on aarch64-none-elf, aarch64-linux-gnu. Additionally the originally
>>>>> reporter of the bug, (doko@ubuntu.com), applied the patch and successfully
>>>>> bootstrapped and tested with no regressions.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-09-23  Michael Collison <michael.collison@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>     * config/aarch64/iterators.md (lconst_atomic): New mode attribute to
>>>>>     support constraints for CONST_INT in atomic operations.
>>>>>     * config/aarch64/atomics.md
>>>>>     (atomic_<atomic_optab><mode>): Use lconst_atomic constraint.
>>>>>     (atomic_nand<mode>): Likewise.
>>>>>     (atomic_fetch_<atomic_optab><mode>): Likewise.
>>>>>     (atomic_fetch_nand<mode>): Likewise.
>>>>>     (atomic_<atomic_optab>_fetch<mode>): Likewise.
>>>>>     (atomic_nand_fetch<mode>): Likewise.
>>>>
>>>> OK Thanks.  /Marcus
>>>
>>> Can you please backport this to all release branches as well?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I have tested this backport against 4.8 and 4.9 branches.
>> I applies cleanly in both cases, shows no regression and fixes the ICE.
>>
>> I'm afraid it's too late for committing into the 4.8 branch?
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in handling this.
>>
>> Christophe.
>>
>
> For the record, I have committed this backport as r224503. in the 4.9-branch.
>
> I will commit it in the 4.8-branch when Richard confirms it's OK.
>
>
Now committed in gcc-4.8-branch as r224510 after Richard confirmed on IRC.

Christophe.

>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]