Hi, "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Hi, > > on 2024/5/14 11:00, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks a lot for your helpful review! >> >> "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> on 2024/5/13 10:57, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires >>>> an address operand, while the operand is with the constraint "X" which >>>> allow non-address form. An error message would be reported to indicate >>>> the invalid asm operands. >>>> >>>> Bootstrap®test pass on ppc64{,le}. >>>> Is this ok for trunk? >>>> >>>> BR, >>>> Jeff(Jiufu Guo) >>>> >>>> PR target/96866 >>>> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (print_operand_address): >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c: New test. >>>> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c: New test. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 6 ++++++ >>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >>>> index 117999613d8..50943d76f79 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >>>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >>>> @@ -14659,6 +14659,12 @@ print_operand_address (FILE *file, rtx x) >>>> else if (SYMBOL_REF_P (x) || GET_CODE (x) == CONST >>>> || GET_CODE (x) == LABEL_REF) >>>> { >>>> + if (this_is_asm_operands && !address_operand (x, VOIDmode)) >>> >>> Do we really need this_is_asm_operands here? >> I understand your point: >> since in function 'print_operand_address' which supports not only user >> asm code. So, it maybe incorrect if 'x' is not an 'address_operand', >> no matter this_is_asm_operands. >> >> Here, 'this_is_asm_operands' is needed because it would be treated as an >> user fault in asm-code (otherwise, internal_error in the compiler). > > The called function "output_operand_lossage" already takes different > actions for this_is_asm_operands and !this_is_asm_operands cases, so > for this_is_asm_operands, it goes with error_for_asm and no ICE, no? > > And without this_is_asm_operands, if we adopt constraint X internally > and hit this (it means it's already unexpected), isn't better to see > the ICE instead of going further? Yeap, exactly! "output_operand_lossage" could handle both user 'asm' error and internal_error. So it would be ok to call it directly just for "gcc_assert(TARGET_TOC)" for this "if condition". Like: ``` else if (TARGET_TOC) output_operand_lossage ("invalid expression as operand"); ``` I would refine the patch. Thanks again for your great comments. BR, Jeff(Jiufu) Guo > > BR, > Kewen > >> >> I notice one thing: >> As what we need is emitting error for printing address if the address >> can not be access directly. >> So it would be better to emit message through 'output_operand_lossage' >> just befor gcc_assert(TARGET_TOC). >> >> Thanks a lot for your insight comment! >> >>> >>>> + { >>>> + output_operand_lossage ("invalid expression as operand"); >>>> + return; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> output_addr_const (file, x); >>>> if (small_data_operand (x, GET_MODE (x))) >>>> fprintf (file, "@%s(%s)", SMALL_DATA_RELOC, >>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 00000000000..6554a472a11 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-1.c >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ >>>> +/* It's to verify no ICE here, ignore error messages about invalid 'asm'. >>>> */ >>>> +/* { dg-excess-errors "pr96866-2.c" } */ >>>> +/* { dg-options "-fPIC -O2" } */ >>> >>> Nit: If these two options are required, it would be good to have a comment >>> explaining it a bit >>> when it's not obvious. >> >> Good suggestion, thanks! >>> >>>> + >>>> +int x[2]; >>>> + >>>> +int __attribute__ ((noipa)) >>>> +f1 (void) >>>> +{ >>>> + int n; >>>> + int *p = x; >>>> + *p++; >>>> + __asm__ volatile("ld %0, %a1" : "=r"(n) : "X"(p)); >>>> + return n; >>>> +} >>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 00000000000..a5ec96f29dd >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr96866-2.c >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ >>>> +/* It's to verify no ICE here, ignore error messages about invalid 'asm'. >>>> */ >>>> +/* { dg-excess-errors "pr96866-2.c" } */ >>>> +/* { dg-options "-fPIC -O2" } */ >>> >>> Ditto. >> Thanks! >> >> BR, >> Jeff(Jiufu) Guo >>> >>> BR, >>> Kewen >>> >>>> + >>>> +void >>>> +f (void) >>>> +{ >>>> + extern int x; >>>> + __asm__ volatile("#%a0" ::"X"(&x)); >>>> +}