This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH AArch64]Fix test failure for pr84682-2.c
- From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- To: Joey Ye <joey dot ye dot cc at gmail dot com>, "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, richard dot sandiford at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:29:00 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH AArch64]Fix test failure for pr84682-2.c
- References: <DB6PR0802MB2504BCFAD63BCAA484B5EE8FE7D70@DB6PR0802MB2504.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <5AABAF14.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHFci2-iLwXvEieeefPe0O6bgjBrefPwpS6FgfoH1Bztyq2_VQ@mail.gmail.com> <5AFBEA09.email@example.com> <CAL0py25M1h1onsO4swSHrjLtcoR_QaeefGQjqWqEtC3iD3ZtsA@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHFci2-NkyLa95FwropaX2x+GqXns3mnp12fFJP5_KD_RiBKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0py25m3UVXz6VH4wCA+3EZjp+2+uasxKH=8z+=Ugfg5onMTA@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com>
On 30/08/2018 13:24, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Joey Ye <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Hi Bin & Richard,
>> It is not as simple as keeping the assertion, which still fails even
>> with the change in reorg.c. The testing result is as following:
>> I. With Bin's patch version 2 (removing the assertion in aarch64.c and
>> adding the check in reorg.c): pr84682-2.c passes
>> II. With Richard's suggestion to keep the assertion in aarch64, but
>> adding the check in reorg.c: pr84682-2.c fails
>> Apparently there is a different path that reaches the assertion.
> Yeah, looks like we also need to make constrain_operands check
> address_operand for 'p' (which I think it should do irrespective
> of "strict", since in general we can only reload an operand as
> a pointer if the original value has the right form for an address).
What's the status of this patch?