Hi Bin,
On 22/03/18 11:07, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> writes: >> Hi Bin, >> >> On 16/03/18 11:42, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This simple patch fixes test case failure for pr84682-2.c by returning >>> false on wrong mode rtx in aarch64_classify_address, rather than assert. >>> >>> Bootstrap and test on aarch64. Is it OK? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> bin >>> >>> 2018-03-16 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >>> >>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_address): Return false >>> on wrong mode rtx, rather than assert. >> >> This looks ok to me in light of >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00633.html >> This function is used to validate inline asm operands too, not just >> internally-generated addresses. >> Therefore all kinds of garbage must be rejected gracefully rather than ICEing. >> >> You'll need an approval from an AArch64 maintainer though. > > IMO we should make address_operand itself check something like: > > (GET_MODE (x) == VOIDmode || SCALAR_INT_MODE_P (GET_MODE (x))) > > Target-independent code fundamentally assumes that an address will not > be a float, so I think the check should be in target-independent code > rather than copied to each individual backend. > > This was only caught on aarch64 because we added the assert, but I think > some backends ignore the mode of the address and so would actually accept > simple float rtxes. Hi Richard, Thanks for the suggestion generalizing the fix. Here is the updated patch. Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64, is it OK?
I guess you need a midend maintainer to ok this now. CC'ing Jeff... Thanks, Kyrill
Thanks, bin 2018-03-22 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> * recog.c (address_operand): Return false on wrong mode for address. * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_address): Remove assert since it's checked in general code now. > > Thanks, > Richard