This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [AArch64] Fix ICEs in aarch64_print_operand_internal (PR target/83335)
- From: Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>, Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus dot Shawcroft at arm dot com>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:21:37 +0000
- Subject: Re: [AArch64] Fix ICEs in aarch64_print_operand_internal (PR target/83335)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87r2s9awha.fsf@linaro.org> <20171207093108.GA35729@arm.com> <CAKdteOZootDp6jhgROfD_9=V4i7w9-Zy__o4eLWv5d90jUTnQw@mail.gmail.com> <87r2s519yo.fsf@linaro.org> <CAKdteOZO8DH7oxhnzJuX4D7qD41-xGkj03Eh-SMHsqaN2G6y=A@mail.gmail.com> <20171211173304.GQ2353@tucnak>
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:10:08PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> >> Can you check?
>> >
>> > I think that's a separate preexisting problem. Could you file a PR?
>> >
>>
>> Sure, I filed:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
>>
>> > Personally I'd just remove the assert, but I'm guessing that wouldn't
>> > be acceptable...
>
> So, I think either we can return false instead of dying on the assertion,
> but then it will emit output_addr_const and often just silently emit it
> without diagnosing it (first patch), or just call output_operand_lossage
> there, which will ICE except for inline asm, where it will error.
> It is true there is no code provided, but output_addr_const wouldn't
> provide that either:
> default:
> if (targetm.asm_out.output_addr_const_extra (file, x))
> break;
>
> output_operand_lossage ("invalid expression as operand");
> in final.c.
I think the testcase is valid even for ILP32, so the first sounds better
to me.
(It was because I thought the test was valid that I was leaving the fix
to someone more familiar with ILP32 -- sorry that you've had to pick it
up instead.)
Thanks,
Richard