On 04/07/14 10:36, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Terry Guo <terry....@arm.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard Earnshaw >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:31 PM >>> To: Terry Guo >>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Ramana Radhakrishnan >>> Subject: Re: [Patch, GCC/Thumb-1]Mishandle the label type insn in function >>> thumb1_reorg >>> >>> On 10/06/14 12:42, Terry Guo wrote: >>>> Hi There, >>>> >>>> The thumb1_reorg function use macro INSN_CODE to find expected >>> instructions. >>>> But the macro INSN_CODE doesn't work for label type instruction. The >>>> INSN_CODE(label_insn) will return the label number. When we have a lot >>> of >>>> labels and current label_insn is the first insn of basic block, the >>>> INSN_CODE(label_insn) could accidentally equal to >>> CODE_FOR_cbranchsi4_insn >>>> in this case. This leads to ICE due to SET_SRC(label_insn) in subsequent >>>> code. In general we should skip all such improper insns. This is the >>>> purpose >>>> of attached small patch. >>>> >>>> Some failures in recent gcc regression test on thumb1 target are caused by >>>> this reason. So with this patch, all of them passed and no new failures. Is >>>> it ok to trunk? >>>> >>>> BR, >>>> Terry >>>> >>>> 2014-06-10 Terry Guo <terry....@arm.com> >>>> >>>> * config/arm/arm.c (thumb1_reorg): Move to next basic block if the >>> head >>>> of current basic block isn't a proper insn. >>>> >>> >>> I think you should just test that "insn != BB_HEAD (bb)". The loop >>> immediately above this deals with the !NON-DEBUG insns, so the logic is >>> confusing the way you've written it. >>> >>> R. >>> >> >> Thanks for comments. The patch is updated and tested. No more ICE. Is this >> one OK? >> >> BR, >> Terry > > Hi, > The bug is also reported for 4.9 branch at > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61712 > As far as I checked, the ICE is also caused by label instruction as in > this message thread. > Since the fix is on trunk more than two weeks, could we back port it > to 4.9 branch? > > Thanks, > bin >
Yes, unless an RM objects within 24 hours. R.
