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: PR middle-end/52141: ICE due to asm statement


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/16/12 12:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:46:33AM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> #GOOD
>>> houston:/build/t2/gcc$ ./cc1 a.c -fgnu-tm -O0 -quiet -w
>>> In function 'asmfunc',
>>> ? ? inlined from 'f' at a.c:13:10:
>>> a.c:7:3: error: asm not allowed in 'transaction_safe' function
>>>
>>> #BAD
>>> houston:/build/t2/gcc$ ./cc1 a.c -fgnu-tm -O1 -quiet -w
>>> a.c: In function 'f':
>>> a.c:7:3: error: asm not allowed in 'transaction_safe' function
>>> houston:/build/t2/gcc$
>>
>>
>> Even with -O1 -g ? ?With -g0 we prune BLOCKs, so the backtraces
>> don't work well.
>
>
> Well with -O1 -g the backtrace works for this particular error. ?But with
> -O2 -g, we trigger another error "asm not allowed in atomic transaction",
> and no amount of %K fiddling will get me a backtrace.
>
> But even so, it doesn't seem right to expect users to get a correct error
> message only with -g, does it?

Well, you can't expect diagnostics to be perfect with inlining in place.
But you can try improving things by looking at what blocks tree-ssa-live.c
prunes.

Disabling early inlining for TM is a hack, I don't think you want to make
people pay the optimizing penalty just because of asm diagnostics.

Richard.


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