This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: i386/sse.md:round<mode>2 skips operands[2] -> -O0 warning
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:06:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: i386/sse.md:round<mode>2 skips operands[2] -> -O0 warning
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jakub at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 37961C04D2B7
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 37961C04D2B7
- References: <ory3t2gu7v.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org> <CAFULd4Yb+nSVB8Lk+1rtOABY7ZKqUGPi4Gv3QsFOrDA6JEpJiA@mail.gmail.com> <or4lv8tk84.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 07:00:59AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> [adding the list]
>
> On Jun 8, 2017, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> I was playing with bootstrap STAGE2_C{,XX}FLAGS='-O0 -fcompare-debug' to
> >> test some changes I'm working on, and -Werror in stage2 prevented
> >> compilation of one of the insn-*.c files. That's because round<mode>2
> >> doesn't have an operand 2. The generated code for round<mode>2_sfix
> >> calls the corresponding gen_round<mode>2, and then something in there
> >> attempts to access the uninitialized operand, which the stage1 GCC warns
> >> about and errors out because of -Werror.
> >>
> >> I'll be glad to test and submit a patch for this, but I thought I'd ask
> >> whether you'd prefer to leave this alone, to have it fixed it with a
> >> minimal diff as below, or with a renumbering of all operands >=3 to >=2?
>
> > These operands are already pretty weirdly numbered, so the below looks
> > appropriate as well.
>
> > The proposed patch is OK.
>
> Thanks, I'm checking this in. Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu.
I bet it won't apply, I didn't know you were looking at this;
Martin Liska filed PR81151 recently and I've fixed it yesterday.
Jakub