This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/43635] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in s390_emit_call, at config/s390/s390.c:9484
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Apr 2010 08:11:01 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/43635] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in s390_emit_call, at config/s390/s390.c:9484
- References: <bug-43635-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-08 08:11 -------
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in s390_emit_call,
at config/s390/s390.c:9484
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:56 -------
> Created an attachment (id=20328)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20328&action=view)
> --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20328&action=view)
> Reduced testcase
>
> The check for valid sibcalls in the S/390 back-end relies on the decl to be
> available in the DECL parameter:
>
> /* The 31 bit PLT code uses register 12 (GOT pointer - caller saved)
> which would have to be restored before the sibcall. */
> if (!TARGET_64BIT && flag_pic && decl && !targetm.binds_local_p (decl))
> return false;
>
> The type cast of the function pointer in the testcase introduces a temporary
> variable on 4.5 which is not linked with the function decl anymore:
>
> x_1 = (void (*<T244>) (float) (*<T248>) (void *)) d;
> D.1966_3 = x_1 (p_2(D)); [tail call]
> return D.1966_3;
>
> With 4.4:
>
> D.1224 = (void (*<T242>) (float) (*<T246>) (void *)) d (p); [tail call]
> return D.1224;
>
> So we probably have to always reject sibcalls if the fndecl is not reachable.
The extra cast happens if the function signatures are not compatible
(by means of useless_type_conversion_p). I can't deciper the
function type from (void (*<T244>) (float) (*<T248>) (void *))
right now, but it's early in the morning ;)
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43635