I've committed the attached patch to fix PR target/66591 which is
an ice-on-valid-code with -mlra.
SH has only one register in INDEX_REGISTER_CLASS and if the index
term of a memory address is a subreg of DImode register, LRA can't
find appropriate hardware registers in the problematic situation.
It looks to be rare even on SH in the actual codes and seems that
pre-allocating R0 for that index term in sh.c:prepare_move_operands
is enough ATM.  The patch is tested on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu with
and without -mlra.  CSiBE shows no visible regression.

Regards,
        kaz
--
2015-06-19  Kaz Kojima  <kkoj...@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR target/66591
        * config/sh/sh.c (prepare_move_operands): Replace subreg
        index term with R0 for base and index addressing.

diff --git a/config/sh/sh.c b/config/sh/sh.c
index 8fc8197..b338a6a 100644
--- a/config/sh/sh.c
+++ b/config/sh/sh.c
@@ -1777,10 +1777,14 @@ prepare_move_operands (rtx operands[], machine_mode 
mode)
         target/55212.
         We split possible load/store to two move insns via r0 so as to
         shorten R0 live range.  It will make some codes worse but will
-        win on avarage for LRA.  */
+        win on average for LRA.
+        Also when base+index addressing is used and the index term is
+        a subreg, LRA assumes that more hard registers can be available
+        in some situation.  It isn't the case for SH in the problematic
+        case.  We can pre-allocate R0 for that index term to avoid
+        the issue.  See PR target/66591.  */
       else if (sh_lra_p ()
               && TARGET_SH1 && ! TARGET_SH2A
-              && (mode == QImode || mode == HImode)
               && ((REG_P (operands[0]) && MEM_P (operands[1]))
                   || (REG_P (operands[1]) && MEM_P (operands[0]))))
        {
@@ -1788,7 +1792,8 @@ prepare_move_operands (rtx operands[], machine_mode mode)
          rtx reg = operands[load_p ? 0 : 1];
          rtx adr = XEXP (operands[load_p ? 1 : 0], 0);
 
-         if (REGNO (reg) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER
+         if ((mode == QImode || mode == HImode)
+             && REGNO (reg) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER
              && GET_CODE (adr) == PLUS
              && REG_P (XEXP (adr, 0))
              && (REGNO (XEXP (adr, 0)) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
@@ -1800,6 +1805,17 @@ prepare_move_operands (rtx operands[], machine_mode mode)
              emit_move_insn (r0_rtx, operands[1]);
              operands[1] = r0_rtx;
            }
+         if (REGNO (reg) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER
+             && GET_CODE (adr) == PLUS
+             && REG_P (XEXP (adr, 0))
+             && (REGNO (XEXP (adr, 0)) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
+             && SUBREG_P (XEXP (adr, 1))
+             && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (adr, 1))))
+           {
+             rtx r0_rtx = gen_rtx_REG (GET_MODE (XEXP (adr, 1)), R0_REG);
+             emit_move_insn (r0_rtx, XEXP (adr, 1));
+             XEXP (adr, 1) = r0_rtx;
+           }
        }
     }
 

Reply via email to