[Bug bootstrap/44993] [4.6 regression] sparc64-linux bootstrap broken

2010-07-27 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-27 20:15 
---
Introduced by the fix for PR middle-end/44790:

2010-07-07  Richard Guenther  rguent...@suse.de

PR middle-end/44790
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Go the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR path
for expanding the constant offset for MEM_REFs.

The problem is that:

  name = MEM[(struct
exp_ch3__make_predefined_primitive_specs__B_99__stream_op_tss_names___PAD
*)D.14526_1156 + 4294967296B];

is expanded into

sethi   %hi(stream_op_tss_names.6060+4294967296), %l2
or  %l2, %lo(stream_op_tss_names.6060+4294967296), %l2

which overflows since sethi is a 32-bit operator.

Going through POINTER_PLUS_EXPR to expand a const addresss apparently bypasses
checks for valid addresses in the back-end.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44993

[Bug bootstrap/44993] [4.6 regression] sparc64-linux bootstrap broken

2010-07-24 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-24 21:43 
---
Investigating.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-07-24 21:43:38
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44993

[Bug bootstrap/44993] [4.6 regression] sparc64-linux bootstrap broken

2010-07-24 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2010-07-24 21:43:38 |2010-07-24 21:43:50
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44993

[Bug bootstrap/44993] [4.6 regression] sparc64-linux bootstrap broken

2010-07-19 Thread mikpe at it dot uu dot se 


--- Comment #1 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2010-07-19 21:04 ---
The second failure is PR44970.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44993