------- Comment #6 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-12 23:45 -------
This is also present on i686-pc-cygwin:
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr38240.c (internal compiler error)
ICE happens here:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x006065e0 in convert_move (to=0x7fcc26c0, from=0x7fcc26d0, unsignedp=0)
at /gnu/gcc/gcc-unpatched/gcc/expr.c:2944
#1 0x00609d2f in store_expr (exp=0x7fde2c10, target=0x7fcc26c0,
call_param_p=0, nontemporal=0 '\0')
at /gnu/gcc/gcc-unpatched/gcc/expr.c:2944
#2 0x0060f638 in expand_assignment (to=0x7fe20050, from=0x7fde2c10,
nontemporal=0 '\0') at /gnu/gcc/gcc-unpatched/gcc/expr.c:2944
(...yes, the line number info is wrong, don't know why but it's unrelated.)
The patch in r162918 tightens up the condition on calling emit_block_move:
--- trunk/gcc/expr.c 2010/08/05 15:39:54 162917
+++ trunk/gcc/expr.c 2010/08/05 16:37:38 162918
@@ -4752,11 +4752,14 @@
{
int unsignedp = TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (exp));
if (GET_MODE (target) == BLKmode
- || GET_MODE (temp) == BLKmode)
+ && GET_MODE (temp) == BLKmode)
emit_block_move (target, temp, expr_size (exp),
(call_param_p
? BLOCK_OP_CALL_PARM
: BLOCK_OP_NORMAL));
+ else if (GET_MODE (target) == BLKmode)
+ store_bit_field (target, INTVAL (expr_size (exp)) * BITS_PER_UNIT,
+ 0, GET_MODE (temp), temp);
else
convert_move (target, temp, unsignedp);
}
so that when temp is BLKmode and target is not, as in this case:
(gdb) call debug_rtx (to) # aka target
(mem/c/i:V4SF (reg/f:SI 58 [ D.1753 ]) [0 <retval>+0 S16 A128])
(gdb) call debug_rtx (from) # aka temp
(mem/c/i:BLK (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 54 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int -16 [0xfffffff0])) [0 D.1747+0 S16 A128])
... it falls through into the final else clause, and calls convert_move.
However convert_move is unable to handle any BLKmode data at all: it has these
asserts near the beginning,
gcc_assert (to_mode != BLKmode);
gcc_assert (from_mode != BLKmode);
.. and the second one fires.
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |davek at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45325
