[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-10 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-10 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 --- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Tue Apr 10 09:58:57 2018 New Revision: 259266 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259266=gcc=rev Log: [explow] PR target/85173: validize memory before passing it on to

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-09 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #6) > I see what you mean. However, probe_stack and probe_stack_address are not > optabs, they are just pattern names that have a gen_* function. So we can't > call

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-04 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 --- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > > > I wonder if we shouldn't do: > > > --- gcc/explow.c

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > > I wonder if we shouldn't do: > > --- gcc/explow.c2018-01-03 21:21:39.012907765 +0100 > > +++ gcc/explow.c

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-04 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
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

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-03 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/85173] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 for -fstack-clash-protection on ARM

2018-04-03 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|