| Message ID | 50ABC1DE.6080001@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:46:06AM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a > POINTER_PLUS_EXPR to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is > invalid in {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the > invalid statement. > > Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when appropriate. > > OK for trunk? Ok, thanks. > - if (bump.is_negative ()) > + if (bump.is_negative () > + && cand_code != POINTER_PLUS_EXPR) > { > code = MINUS_EXPR; > bump = -bump; I wonder if this isn't unsafe even when bump is the shwi minimum (say LONG_MIN for LP64 target/64-bit HWI). But sure, it is preexisting code, so perhaps something for Bill to look at later. Jakub
> The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR > to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is invalid in > {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the invalid statement. > > Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when appropriate. > > OK for trunk? The ChangeLog mentions POINTER_MINUS_EXPR, which doesn't exist.
On 11/20/12 16:23, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR >> to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is invalid in >> {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the invalid statement. >> >> Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when appropriate. >> >> OK for trunk? > > The ChangeLog mentions POINTER_MINUS_EXPR, which doesn't exist. > Actually the ChangeLog is correct, what was incorrect was the svn commit message. Is there a way to change the commit message retroactively?
> Actually the ChangeLog is correct, what was incorrect was the svn commit > message. Is there a way to change the commit message retroactively? Probably, but I wouldn't bother about that.
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c b/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c index 8e2a247..65fc6b1 100644 --- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c +++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c @@ -1643,10 +1643,19 @@ replace_dependent (slsr_cand_t c, enum tree_code cand_code) basis = lookup_cand (c->basis); basis_name = gimple_assign_lhs (basis->cand_stmt); - incr_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (c->cand_stmt)); - code = PLUS_EXPR; + if (cand_code == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR) + { + incr_type = sizetype; + code = cand_code; + } + else + { + incr_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (c->cand_stmt)); + code = PLUS_EXPR; + } - if (bump.is_negative ()) + if (bump.is_negative () + && cand_code != POINTER_PLUS_EXPR) { code = MINUS_EXPR; bump = -bump; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr55350.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr55350.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f10daea --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr55350.c @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +void +foo (__INTPTR_TYPE__ x, __INTPTR_TYPE__ y) +{ + int i; + void **a = (void *) (8UL * (x / 8UL)); + for (i = 0; i < x; i++) + a[i] = (void *) y; +}
The problem here is that the SLSR pass is promoting a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR to a PLUS_EXPR. Since pointer arithmetic is invalid in {PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR's, the gimple verifier chokes on the invalid statement. Fixed by maintaining the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when appropriate. OK for trunk? commit ae7b615a11be6a0c5cc00f7ea0bf29c142931490 Author: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> Date: Tue Nov 20 11:20:58 2012 -0600 PR tree-optimization/55350 * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (replace_dependent): Handle POINTER_{PLUS,MINUS}_EXPR correctly.