This came up for frv with some as yet uncontributed work and one of
those funky testcases I'm asking about. :)
Basically we weren't verifying that the addresses were valid in either
case. For the first memory_operand isn't sufficient, and the last is
that force_const_mem doesn't guarantee a valid address.
OK?
-eric
--
Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
2003-11-11 Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
* reload1.c (reload): Verify that addresses for reg_equiv_*
are valid for the architecture.
Index: reload1.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cvsfiles/devo/gcc/reload1.c,v
retrieving revision 1.332
diff -u -p -w -r1.332 reload1.c
--- reload1.c 26 Sep 2003 22:01:01 -0000 1.332
+++ reload1.c 12 Nov 2003 00:21:08 -0000
@@ -744,7 +744,8 @@ reload (rtx first, int global)
stages of reload assume that all addresses found
in the reg_equiv_* arrays were originally legitimate,
we ignore such REG_EQUIV notes. */
- if (memory_operand (x, VOIDmode))
+ if (memory_operand (x, VOIDmode)
+ && memory_address_p (GET_MODE (x), x))
{
/* Always unshare the equivalence, so we can
substitute into this insn without touching the
@@ -774,6 +775,13 @@ reload (rtx first, int global)
= force_const_mem (GET_MODE (SET_DEST (set)), x);
if (!reg_equiv_memory_loc[i])
continue;
+ /* As above. Later passes of reload assume that
+ all addresses found in the reg_equiv_* arrays
+ were originally legitimate. */
+ if (!memory_address_p (GET_MODE (reg_equiv_memory_loc[i]),
+ reg_equiv_memory_loc[i]))
+ reg_equiv_memory_loc[i] = NULL_RTX;
+
}
}
else