Hi Martin,
On 25/07/16 18:56, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
As other calls of get_ops is guarded with TREE_CODE (x) == SSA_NAME, I guess the
same should be done for the call that causes the ICE.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Martin
0001-Call-get_ops-just-for-SSA_NAMEs-PR-tree-optimization.patch
From 9dd5cc00eb3c271fad91fede6a9b06df356e001f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:19:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Call get_ops just for SSA_NAMEs (PR tree-optimization/71987)
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-07-25 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/71987
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (maybe_optimize_range_tests): Call get_ops
just for SSA_NAMEs.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-25 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
* gcc.dg/torture/pr71987.c: New test.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71987.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c | 10 ++++++----
2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71987.c
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71987.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71987.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..87d5938
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr71987.c
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+/* PR tree-optimization/71987 */
+
+int a, b, *c, *d;
+
+short fn1 (int p1)
+{
+ return a ? p1 : a;
+}
+
+void fn2 ()
+{
+ int e, *f = &e;
+ b = fn1 (d != &e);
+ c = f;
+}
+
+int main ()
+{
+ fn2 ();
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
index ece2d08..dfaf7d8 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
@@ -3519,7 +3519,8 @@ maybe_optimize_range_tests (gimple *stmt)
(or &, corresponding to 1/0 in the phi arguments,
push into ops the individual range test arguments
of the bitwise or resp. and, recursively. */
- if (!get_ops (rhs, code, &ops,
+ if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == SSA_NAME
+ && !get_ops (rhs, code, &ops,
loop_containing_stmt (stmt))
&& (TREE_CODE_CLASS (gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt))
!= tcc_comparison)
@@ -3537,11 +3538,12 @@ maybe_optimize_range_tests (gimple *stmt)
bb_ent.last_idx++;
bb_ent.op = rhs;
}
- else if (is_gimple_assign (stmt)
+ else if (TREE_CODE (lhs) == SSA_NAME
+ && is_gimple_assign (stmt)
&& (TREE_CODE_CLASS (gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt))
== tcc_comparison)
- &&!get_ops (lhs, code, &ops,
- loop_containing_stmt (stmt))
+ && !get_ops (lhs, code, &ops,
+ loop_containing_stmt (stmt))
&& has_single_use (lhs))
{
operand_entry *oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
Sorry about the breakage. Since final_range_test_p allows either lhs or
rhs to be SSA_NAME (for the different cases it accepts), we should
indeed check for TREE_CODE being SSA_NAME. Unfortunately it didn't
trigger in my testing. Lets wait for the maintainers conformation.
Thanks for working on this,
Kugan
