| Message ID | b6c93896-3618-dec5-f1e9-0f03a7bc6ee6@linux.vnet.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Segher, This indeed bootstrapped on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Ok for trunk? Thanks for the review! Bill On 12/11/16 3:31 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi Segher, > > On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Maybe this should use DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL? Or if that doesn't work, >> DF_REF_INSN_INFO? >> > OK, currently regstrapping the following, which also fixes the problem with > a non-bootstrap compiler. Is this ok for trunk if it succeeds? > > Thanks, > Bill > > > [gcc] > > 2016-12-11 Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > PR target/78695 > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (find_alignment_op): Discard from > consideration any artificial definition. > > [gcc/testsuite] > > 2016-12-11 Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > PR target/78695 > * gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c: New test. > > > Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 243506) > +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (working copy) > @@ -41433,6 +41433,12 @@ find_alignment_op (rtx_insn *insn, rtx base_reg) > if (!base_def_link || base_def_link->next) > break; > > + /* With stack-protector code enabled, and possibly in other > + circumstances, there may not be an associated insn for > + the def. */ > + if (DF_REF_CLASS (base_def_link->ref) == DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL) > + break; > + > rtx_insn *and_insn = DF_REF_INSN (base_def_link->ref); > and_operation = alignment_mask (and_insn); > if (and_operation != 0) > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c (revision 0) > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c (working copy) > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-fstack-protector -O3" } */ > + > +/* PR78695: This code used to ICE in rs6000.c:find_alignment_op because > + the stack protector address definition isn't associated with an insn. */ > + > +void *a(); > +long b() { > + char c[1]; > + char *d = a(), *e = c; > + long f = e ? b(e) : 0; > + if (f > 54) > + f = 1; > + while (f--) > + *d++ = *e++; > +} >
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:31:35PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Maybe this should use DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL? Or if that doesn't work, > > DF_REF_INSN_INFO? > > > OK, currently regstrapping the following, which also fixes the problem with > a non-bootstrap compiler. Is this ok for trunk if it succeeds? > --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 243506) > +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (working copy) > @@ -41433,6 +41433,12 @@ find_alignment_op (rtx_insn *insn, rtx base_reg) > if (!base_def_link || base_def_link->next) > break; > > + /* With stack-protector code enabled, and possibly in other > + circumstances, there may not be an associated insn for > + the def. */ > + if (DF_REF_CLASS (base_def_link->ref) == DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL) > + break; if (DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL (base_def_link->ref)) Okay with that (no need to retest, just see if it compiles ;-) ) Thanks, Segher
Ah, I misread your comment and went hunting for DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL. Sorry! Will fix. Thanks again, Bill > On Dec 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:31:35PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> Maybe this should use DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL? Or if that doesn't work, >>> DF_REF_INSN_INFO? >>> >> OK, currently regstrapping the following, which also fixes the problem with >> a non-bootstrap compiler. Is this ok for trunk if it succeeds? > >> --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 243506) >> +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (working copy) >> @@ -41433,6 +41433,12 @@ find_alignment_op (rtx_insn *insn, rtx base_reg) >> if (!base_def_link || base_def_link->next) >> break; >> >> + /* With stack-protector code enabled, and possibly in other >> + circumstances, there may not be an associated insn for >> + the def. */ >> + if (DF_REF_CLASS (base_def_link->ref) == DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL) >> + break; > > if (DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL (base_def_link->ref)) > > Okay with that (no need to retest, just see if it compiles ;-) ) > > Thanks, > > > Segher >
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c =================================================================== --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 243506) +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (working copy) @@ -41433,6 +41433,12 @@ find_alignment_op (rtx_insn *insn, rtx base_reg) if (!base_def_link || base_def_link->next) break; + /* With stack-protector code enabled, and possibly in other + circumstances, there may not be an associated insn for + the def. */ + if (DF_REF_CLASS (base_def_link->ref) == DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL) + break; + rtx_insn *and_insn = DF_REF_INSN (base_def_link->ref); and_operation = alignment_mask (and_insn); if (and_operation != 0) Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c (revision 0) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/swaps-stack-protector.c (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-fstack-protector -O3" } */ + +/* PR78695: This code used to ICE in rs6000.c:find_alignment_op because + the stack protector address definition isn't associated with an insn. */ + +void *a(); +long b() { + char c[1]; + char *d = a(), *e = c; + long f = e ? b(e) : 0; + if (f > 54) + f = 1; + while (f--) + *d++ = *e++; +}