| Message ID | 50ABB04E.5070705@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes: > This assert looks to me like a "can this ever happen" sort of check. > It quite apparently can. > > Although I'm a bit curious about the reasons we got to this point > in the 55403 instance (unaligned TCmode memory, extracting a TFmode > value), it's clear that one could intentionally write such a thing, > rather than have it happen by accident, and that it should work. > > The following fills in what appears to be a blank. I assume this > is the sort of thing you'd have intended? Sorry, still haven't managed to reproduce this yet -- sparc bootstrap still in slow progress, will try the alpha --with-long-double-128 thing when I get home -- but what kind of bitfield memory were we trying to create in the ICE case? The idea was that "adjust_object" is only ever true for bitfield adjustments. We should then either be using an integer or field mode whose size is picked up by: if (defattrs->size_known_p) size = defattrs->size; or a BLKmode whose value is passed in via adjust_bitfield_address_size. It sounds like I missed a case where the latter was needed. Richard
On 11/20/2012 08:55 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > but what kind of bitfield memory were we trying to > create in the ICE case? The idea was that "adjust_object" is only ever > true for bitfield adjustments. We should then either be using an > integer or field mode whose size is picked up by: > > if (defattrs->size_known_p) > size = defattrs->size; > > or a BLKmode whose value is passed in via adjust_bitfield_address_size. > It sounds like I missed a case where the latter was needed. A TFmode field of an unaligned TCmode original. We do wind up with a BLKmode extraction, without the _size passed in. r~
diff --git a/gcc/emit-rtl.c b/gcc/emit-rtl.c index 27464da..dd3339c 100644 --- a/gcc/emit-rtl.c +++ b/gcc/emit-rtl.c @@ -2177,7 +2177,11 @@ adjust_address_1 (rtx memref, enum machine_mode mode, HOST_WIDE_INT offset, } else if (attrs.size_known_p) { - gcc_assert (!adjust_object); + if (adjust_object) + { + attrs.expr = NULL_TREE; + attrs.alias = 0; + } attrs.size -= offset; /* ??? The store_by_pieces machinery generates negative sizes, so don't assert for that here. */