https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82725
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|i?86-*-* |x86_64-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2017-10-28
CC| |hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[8 Regression] [i386] |[8 Regression] [x86_64]
|internal compiler error: in |internal compiler error: in
|change_address_1, at |change_address_1, at
|emit-rtl.c:2162 |emit-rtl.c:2162
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
The testcase fails on x86_64 using following compile flags:
-O2 -fpie -mtls-direct-seg-refs
As mentioned in the Comment #2, split_double_mode tries to split TImode
address:
(insn 10 2 11 2 (set (reg/i:TI 0 ax)
(mem/u/c:TI (const:DI (unspec:DI [
(symbol_ref:DI ("_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache") [flags 0x2a])
] UNSPEC_NTPOFF)) [1 cache+0 S16 A64 AS1]))
to:
(const:DI (unspec:DI [
(symbol_ref:DI ("_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache") [flags 0x2a])
] UNSPEC_NTPOFF))
and
(const:DI (plus:DI (unspec:DI [
(symbol_ref:DI ("_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache") [flags 0x2a])
] UNSPEC_NTPOFF)
(const_int 8 [0x8])))
The later RTX is not recognized as a valid address.
There is a part of code in ix86_legitimate_address_p that tries to handle
similar situation:
is_legitimate_pic:
if (TARGET_64BIT && (index || base))
{
/* foo@dtpoff(%rX) is ok. */
if (GET_CODE (disp) != CONST
|| GET_CODE (XEXP (disp, 0)) != PLUS
|| GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 0)) != UNSPEC
|| !CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 1))
|| (XINT (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 0), 1) != UNSPEC_DTPOFF
&& XINT (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 0), 1) != UNSPEC_NTPOFF))
/* Non-constant pic memory reference. */
return false;
but it doesn't apply when we have constant tp-relative address.
Enabling this part by removing "&& (index || base)"
returns correct address:
movq %fs:_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache@tpoff, %rax
movq %fs:8+_ZZ7tempDirvE5cache@tpoff, %rdx
Jakub, this code was added by you in:
53812 rth is_legitimate_pic:
40708 hubicka if (TARGET_64BIT && (index || base))
40708 hubicka {
58383 jakub /* foo@dtpoff(%rX) is ok. */
58383 jakub if (GET_CODE (disp) != CONST
58383 jakub || GET_CODE (XEXP (disp, 0)) != PLUS
58383 jakub || GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 0)) !=
UNSPEC
121079 uros || !CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 1))
58383 jakub || (XINT (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 0), 1) !=
UNSPEC_DTPOFF
58383 jakub && XINT (XEXP (XEXP (disp, 0), 0), 1) !=
UNSPEC_NTPOFF))
151854 uros /* Non-constant pic memory reference. */
151854 uros return false;
Do you perhaps remember, why the above addresses should be rejected?
