On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:15:18PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> An explicit check for address registers was not required so far since
> during register allocation the processing of address constraints was
> sufficient. However, address constraints themself do not check for
> REGNO_OK_FOR_{BASE,INDEX}_P. Thus, with the newly introduced
> late-combine pass in r15-1579-g792f97b44ffc5e we generate new insns with
> invalid address registers which aren't fixed up afterwards.
>
> Fixed by explicitly checking for address registers in
> s390_decompose_addrstyle_without_index such that those new insns are
> rejected.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> target/PR115634
> * config/s390/s390.cc (s390_decompose_addrstyle_without_index):
> Check for ADDR_REGS in s390_decompose_addrstyle_without_index.
> ---
> This restores bootstrap on s390. I ran the testsuite against mainline
> and of course there is some fallout which is most likely coming from
> the new pass or other changes. I have another job running comparing
> pre r15-1579-g792f97b44ffc5e with and without this patch. Assuming
> this goes well, ok for mainline?
Bootstrap and regtest of this test went also fine.
>
> gcc/config/s390/s390.cc | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
> index c65421de831..05a0fde7fb0 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
> @@ -3347,7 +3347,9 @@ s390_decompose_addrstyle_without_index (rtx op, rtx
> *base,
> while (op && GET_CODE (op) == SUBREG)
> op = SUBREG_REG (op);
>
> - if (op && GET_CODE (op) != REG)
> + if (op && (!REG_P (op)
> + || (reload_completed
> + && !REGNO_OK_FOR_BASE_P (REGNO (op)))))
> return false;
>
> if (offset)
> --
> 2.45.1
>
