Ok to backport to gcc4.8?
I'm attaching an updated version - just fixed a spelling error in the
comment.
Thanks,
Greta
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/56797
* config/arm/arm.c (load_multiple_sequence): Require SP
as base register for loads if SP is in the register list.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: 19 April 2013 12:34
> To: Greta Yorsh
> Cc: GCC Patches; [email protected]; Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Fix PR56797
>
> On 19/04/13 10:34, Greta Yorsh wrote:
> > Fix PR56797
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797
> >
> > The problem is that peephole optimizer thinks it can generate an ldm,
> but
> > the pattern for ldm no longer matches, because after r188738 it
> requires
> > that if one of the destination registers is SP then the base register
> must
> > be SP, and it's not SP in the test case.
> >
> > The test case fails on armv5t but doesn't fail on armv6t2 or armv7-a
> because
> > peephole doesn't trigger there (because there is a different epilogue
> > sequence). It looks like a latent problem for other architecture or
> CPUs.
> >
> > This patch adds this condition to the peephole optimizer.
> >
> > No regression on qemu for arm-none-eabi and fixes the test reported
> in the
> > PR. I couldn't minimize the test sufficiently to include it in the
> > testsuite.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greta
> >
> > gcc/
> >
> > 2013-04-18 Greta Yorsh <[email protected]>
> >
> > PR target/56797
> > * config/arm/arm.c (load_multiple_sequence): Require SP
> > as base register for loads if SP is in the register list.
> >
>
> OK.
>
> R.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
index d00849c..60fef78 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -10347,6 +10347,13 @@ load_multiple_sequence (rtx *operands, int nops, int
*regs, int *saved_order,
|| (i != nops - 1 && unsorted_regs[i] == base_reg))
return 0;
+ /* Don't allow SP to be loaded unless it is also the base
+ register. It guarantees that SP is reset correctly when
+ an LDM instruction is interrupted. Otherwise, we might
+ end up with a corrupt stack. */
+ if (unsorted_regs[i] == SP_REGNUM && base_reg != SP_REGNUM)
+ return 0;
+
unsorted_offsets[i] = INTVAL (offset);
if (i == 0 || unsorted_offsets[i] < unsorted_offsets[order[0]])
order[0] = i;
