> Hi Arseny, > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 06:15:47PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >> I've found recently that rs6000 and powerpcspe backends can easily trip over >> various gcc_unreachable()'s and gcc_assert()'s in their respective copies of >> print_operand() when provided with some invalid assembly (i.e. assembly >> written >> for other architectures). > > Yup. They should use output_operand_lossage instead.
Isn't it something that should be mentioned in the Internals manual? >> I have a hunch that this kind of invalid input should have been rejected way >> earlier, before getting to the printing out the resulting assembly, and that >> i386 backend actually does exactly that. Still, I'm not convinced that the >> current behavior is really unintended. Is it worthwhile at all to report >> ICEs of >> this kind? > > Please report them, yes! So I've filed PR88188 with three issues I've found so far. Though they might be of different nature. > Bonus points if you can find some way to test > this in the testsuite (preferably for all targets), testing many kinds > of input args (reg, imm, memory) and all output modifiers. For now I use a trivial script that simply tries to compile everything it finds, each file with a new set of -mcpu value, optimization options and --param options. Maybe enhancing the testsuite to facilitate some kind of fuzzing out of the box could be a proper task for the GSoC?
