On September 1, 2017 10:33:10 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >Hi! > >This is something that has been reported privately to me. >This is in code introduced in >https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00660.html >and looks indeed like a pasto to me, before the loop there is >a very similar set of stmts without the 2 suffix, and unless >regno being a hard reg (after possible reg_renumber) implies >that regno2 (after possible reg_renumber) is a hard reg, if >unlucky we might access out of bounds. > >I don't have a testcase for this, but have bootstrapped/regtested >it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
OK. Richard. >2017-09-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > * lra-remat.c (reg_overlap_for_remat_p): Fix a pasto. > >--- gcc/lra-remat.c.jj 2017-05-25 10:37:00.000000000 +0200 >+++ gcc/lra-remat.c 2017-09-01 19:42:07.615291583 +0200 >@@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ reg_overlap_for_remat_p (lra_insn_reg *r > > if (regno2 >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER && reg_renumber[regno2] >= 0) > regno2 = reg_renumber[regno2]; >- if (regno >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER) >+ if (regno2 >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER) > nregs2 = 1; > else > nregs2 = hard_regno_nregs[regno2][reg->biggest_mode]; > > Jakub
