https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103271
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #10)
> looks like that this is exactly the same issue as exposed in pr102285.
>
> and the original fix to pr102285 just hide this inconsistent IR issue.
>
> -mno-strict-align exposed this issue again.
>
> So. I believe that we need to fix the inconsistent IR issue in order to
> completely resolve this issue.
The issue is simply that using build_zero_cst is "wrong" here in the sense
that we know the size is constant but we hide that fact.
In fact, C disallows initializing variable-sized objects, so an adjusted
testcase with
int fb[tw] = {};
is not valid C. I think the situation with risc-v is unfortunate since
all other places in the compiler that zero non-memory simply use
emit_move_insn from CONST0_RTX but that's not avilable since we do not
go the "correct" path only because have_insn_for (SET, TImode) does not
exist.
But I'm not a target / RTL expert enough to tell whether that's a general
problem that should be fixed.
I also have no idea how to manually generate a proper zeroing sequence
for the (reg:TI ..) pseudo the VLA typed aggregate expands to.
I suppose assigning TImode to a decl but not even being able to move TImode
can be a problem elsewhere...
