My bad, I used dg-cmp-results without verbosity which didn't show the problem It starts to show it with -v -v, I'm not sure why. I'll have a look right now and revert by the end of today if I cannot come up with a fix. Does that sound ok?
Best regards, Thomas On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 12:31, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:12 PM Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/03/2018 12:47 PM, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > never_reload_fixed_address_operand.patch > > > > > > > > > From 2831d8b886d92513c2d30d43a6a989d2bbd0ceee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Thomas Preud'homme<thomas.preudho...@linaro.org> > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:50:12 +0100 > > > Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH, LRA] Never reload fixed form constraints memory > > > operand > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The unconditional reload of address operand for recognized instruction > > > in process_address_1 prevent the patch for fixing "PR85434: Address of > > > stack protector guard spilled to stack on ARM" proposed at [1]. The code > > > in this patch attempt to control which registers are used to make PIC > > > access but the reload performed by process_address_1 will use generic > > > PIC access. This patch removes the test for the instruction to be > > > unrecognized to do the reload, thus always avoiding to reload address > > > operand for fixed constraints (such as "X" used in the patch). > > > > > > [1]https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01838.html > > > > > > ChangeLog entry is as follows: > > > > > > *** gcc/ChangeLog *** > > > > > > 2018-10-03 Thomas Preud'homme<thomas.preudho...@linaro.org> > > > > > > * lra-constraints.c (process_address_1): Bail out for all > > > satisfied fixed constraints. > > > > > > Testing: Successfully bootstrapped and regtested on: > > > - arm-linux-gnueabihf (both Arm and Thumb2 mode) > > > - aarch64-linux-gnu > > > - x86_64-linux-gnu > > > - i386-linux-gnu > > > - sparc64-linux-gnu (gcc202) > > > - powerpc64le-linux-gnu (gcc112) > > > > > > Is this ok for trunk? > > > > > OK. Thank you for testing all these targets, Thomas. > > > > This caused: > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr83317.c (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr83317.c (test for excess errors) > > [hjl@gnu-4 gcc]$ > /export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc > -B/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-debug/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr83317.c > -m32 -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fno-diagnostics-show-line-numbers > -fdiagnostics-color=never -O1 -fPIC -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -S -o > pr83317.s > during RTL pass: reload > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr83317.c: > In function \u2018foo\u2019: > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr83317.c:21:1: > internal compiler error: in lra_eliminate_reg_if_possible, at > lra-eliminations.c:1393 > 0xea4875 lra_eliminate_reg_if_possible(rtx_def**) > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-eliminations.c:1393 > 0xe8a94c address_eliminator > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:362 > 0xe8aaf7 satisfies_memory_constraint_p > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:401 > 0xe8f947 process_alt_operands > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:2248 > 0xe93d1f curr_insn_transform > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:3861 > 0xe975f2 lra_constraints(bool) > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:4878 > 0xe7c458 lra(_IO_FILE*) > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra.c:2446 > 0xe111ff do_reload > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/ira.c:5469 > 0xe116f2 execute > /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/ira.c:5653 > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. > See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. > [hjl@gnu-4 gcc]$ > > > -- > H.J.
