https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I wonder if we shouldn't do:
> --- gcc/explow.c 2018-01-03 21:21:39.012907765 +0100
> +++ gcc/explow.c 2018-04-04 08:58:04.716738887 +0200
> @@ -1625,6 +1625,7 @@ set_stack_check_libfunc (const char *lib
> void
> emit_stack_probe (rtx address)
> {
> + address = memory_address (word_mode, address);
> if (targetm.have_probe_stack_address ())
> emit_insn (targetm.gen_probe_stack_address (address));
> else
>
> because it is tedious to do that in every emit_stack_probe caller. Wonder
> why all the other target happen to work even without something like that
> (ok, some targets allow signed 32-bit offsets and maybe we never generate
> larger offsets).
That's similar to what I've been testing. My patch uses validize_mem on the MEM
rtx before passing it down to the target.
I'll be posting it to gcc-patches later today
