This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid inline asm with "X" constraint and non-zero CONST_VECTOR (PR inline-asm/84625)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:47:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ICE on invalid inline asm with "X" constraint and non-zero CONST_VECTOR (PR inline-asm/84625)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20180301231040.GU5867@tucnak> <CAFULd4Y5Gg=eSoNdW-aA8sESfAJOG3B-XNRc6Z73i1KrTtFNAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFULd4ZJ1B7UyXJi1+p=YUR5tuFU3cCP2emJVezKSrAfvBd3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:19:40AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Assertions are only useful when inline asm is not involved, otherwise users
> >> can write anything they want.
>
> IIRC, we can also handle { -1, -1, ... , -1 } in certain cases, but I
> don't think it is worth to complicate here.
We can handle that as whole instruction special-casing all ones
CONST_VECTOR, sure, but as an operand in inline-asm?
Even the { 0, 0, ... , 0 } case is weird, we print it just as 0, dunno
where exactly it would make sense, but we were doing that in the past
already.
Jakub