I guess it is not in our test case, or after this patch, the new
should get a little better result than the old (at present, they are
same).
I shall try to add related case into testsuite within this month.
Thanks
Send from Lenovo A788t.
Michael Eager <ea...@eagerm.com> wrote:
>On 09/25/14 07:03, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Need use VOID instead of SI, or when real VOIDmode comes, it does not
>> match SImode, so cause issue. This patch can fix this issue and pass
>> testsuite.
>>
>> The related test code ('void' will cause CALL instead of SET):
>>
>> typedef void (*T)(void);
>> f1 ()
>> {
>> ((T) 0)();
>> }
>>
>> The related error:
>>
>> [root@localhost gcc]# ./cc1 /tmp/calls.c -o /tmp/1.s
>> f1
>> Analyzing compilation unit
>> Performing interprocedural optimizations
>> <*free_lang_data> <visibility> <early_local_cleanups>
>> <free-inline-summary> <whole-program> <inline>Assembling functions:
>> f1
>> /tmp/calls.c: In function 'f1':
>> /tmp/calls.c:5:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
>> }
>> ^
>> (call_insn 5 2 8 2 (parallel [
>> (call (mem:SI (const_int 0 [0]) [0 MEM[(void (*<T29c>)
>> (void))0B] S4 A32])
>> (const_int 24 [0x18]))
>> (clobber (reg:SI 15 r15))
>> ]) /tmp/calls.c:4 -1
>> (nil)
>> (nil))
>> /tmp/calls.c:5:1: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
>> recog.c:2204
>> 0xb0e71b _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
>> const*)
>> ../../gcc/gcc/rtl-error.c:109
>> 0xb0e75c _fatal_insn_not_found(rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
>> const*)
>> ../../gcc/gcc/rtl-error.c:117
>> 0xac552b extract_insn(rtx_def*)
>> ../../gcc/gcc/recog.c:2204
>> 0x8b919e instantiate_virtual_regs_in_insn
>> ../../gcc/gcc/function.c:1614
>> 0x8ba347 instantiate_virtual_regs
>> ../../gcc/gcc/function.c:1934
>> 0x8ba452 execute
>> ../../gcc/gcc/function.c:1983
>> Please submit a full bug report,
>> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
>> Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
>> See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
>
>Is this test case (or a similar one) in the gcc test suite?
>
>If not, can you please add it to the test suite.
>
>>
>>
>> 2014-09-25 Chen Gang <gang.chen.5...@gmail.com>
>>
>> * config/microblaze/microblaze.md (call_internal1): Use VOID
>> instead of SI to fix "((void (*)(void)) 0)()" issue
>>
>> ---
>> gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.md | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.md
>> b/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.md
>> index b971737..3b4faf4 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.md
>> +++ b/gcc/config/microblaze/microblaze.md
>> @@ -2062,7 +2062,7 @@
>> (set_attr "length" "4")])
>>
>> (define_insn "call_internal1"
>> - [(call (mem (match_operand:SI 0 "call_insn_simple_operand" "ri"))
>> + [(call (mem (match_operand:VOID 0 "call_insn_simple_operand" "ri"))
>> (match_operand:SI 1 "" "i"))
>> (clobber (reg:SI R_SR))]
>> ""
>
>I've verified that your patch does not cause any test suite regressions.
>
>
>--
>Michael Eager ea...@eagercon.com
>1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
