This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug bootstrap/49815] [4.7 regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2241 compiling 64-bit libjava on SPARC
- From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:41:41 +0000
- Subject: [Bug bootstrap/49815] [4.7 regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2241 compiling 64-bit libjava on SPARC
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-49815-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49815
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-22 16:41:22 UTC ---
> I meant registers. Especially with the planned shrink wrapping, say if code
> before the prologue stores some argument into %o5 register that doesn't hold
> any parameter and then prologue does perform a save, that value is now live in
> %i5 rather than %o5 and var-tracking should handle that transparently.
I guess I'll wait and see here, because I don't understand how you can make a
value live through the save insn in the RTL stream if it isn't a parameter.
> Var-tracking should be told that this window save instruction initializes the
> hard frame pointer (%i6 <= %o6) and that %o6 has been decremented, without that
> it is possible it will give wrong answers where values live in.
Do you mean when you put a breakpoint before the save or after the restore? If
so, I'm not sure the local variables are (still) in scope. I guess the restore
would also need to be handled then.