Re: [PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
On 03/05/2012 07:44 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: --- Comment #1 from Mikael Petterssonmikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-03-04 21:01:28 UTC --- Created attachment 26827 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26827 reduced test case in C Depends on target CPU selection. -mcpu=680[012346]0 and -mcpu=cpu32 all work, but -mcpu=5206 (or apparently any other coldfire) ICEs. Indeed. Fixed by not trying to use negqi2 directly, but going through the normal expanders which will DTRT for coldfire. Tested via cross-compile, committed to mainline and 4.7. This patch indeed helps me over the ICE from PR 52481, but now I am tripping over the next bootstrap breakdown (gcc-4_7-branch, --target=m68k-rtems4.11): /tmp/ccWpvRws.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/ccWpvRws.s:79: Error: invalid instruction for this architecture; needs 68000 [68ec000, 68hc000, 68hc001, 68008, 68302, 68306, 68307, 68322, 68356], 68010, 68020 [68k, 68ec020], 68030 [68ec030], 68040 [68ec040], 68060 [68ec060], cpu32 [68330, 68331, 68332, 68333, 68334, 68336, 68340, 68341, 68349, 68360], 51 [51ac, 51cn, 51em, 51jm, 51qe], 5407, 54418 [54410, 54415, 54416, 54417], 54455 [54450, 54451, 54452, 54453, ... -- statement `tas (%a0)' ignored /tmp/ccWpvRws.s:141: Error: invalid instruction for this architecture; needs 68000 [68ec000, 68hc000, 68hc001, 68008, 68302, 68306, 68307, 68322, 68356], 68010, 68020 [68k, 68ec020], 68030 [68ec030], 68040 [68ec040], 68060 [68ec060], cpu32 [68330, 68331, 68332, 68333, 68334, 68336, 68340, 68341, 68349, 68360], 51 [51ac, 51cn, 51em, 51jm, 51qe], 5407, 54418 [54410, 54415, 54416, 54417], 54455 [54450, 54451, 54452, 54453, ... -- statement `tas (%a0)' ignored make[9]: *** [compatibility-atomic-c++0x.lo] Error 1 * Incompatiblible/insufficient binutils (I am using binutils-2.22)? * Some as/ld-flags getting lost/improperly propagated during assembly/linking? * Bad/incompatible inline-asm hard-coded somewhere? Ralf
Re: [PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes: * Incompatiblible/insufficient binutils (I am using binutils-2.22)? * Some as/ld-flags getting lost/improperly propagated during assembly/linking? * Bad/incompatible inline-asm hard-coded somewhere? TAS needs at least ISA_B, ie. at least CFV4. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 And now for something completely different.
Re: [PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
On 03/06/12 02:13, Andreas Schwab wrote: Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes: * Incompatiblible/insufficient binutils (I am using binutils-2.22)? * Some as/ld-flags getting lost/improperly propagated during assembly/linking? * Bad/incompatible inline-asm hard-coded somewhere? TAS needs at least ISA_B, ie. at least CFV4. So... the correct test is what... #define ISA_HAS_TAS (!TARGET_COLDFIRE || TARGET_ISAB || TARGET_ISAC) ? r~
Re: [PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com writes: On 03/06/12 02:13, Andreas Schwab wrote: Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes: * Incompatiblible/insufficient binutils (I am using binutils-2.22)? * Some as/ld-flags getting lost/improperly propagated during assembly/linking? * Bad/incompatible inline-asm hard-coded somewhere? TAS needs at least ISA_B, ie. at least CFV4. So... the correct test is what... #define ISA_HAS_TAS (!TARGET_COLDFIRE || TARGET_ISAB || TARGET_ISAC) Yes, that looks correct. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 And now for something completely different.
Re: [PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
On 03/06/12 09:55, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com writes:
On 03/06/12 02:13, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
* Incompatiblible/insufficient binutils (I am using binutils-2.22)?
* Some as/ld-flags getting lost/improperly propagated during
assembly/linking?
* Bad/incompatible inline-asm hard-coded somewhere?
TAS needs at least ISA_B, ie. at least CFV4.
So... the correct test is what...
#define ISA_HAS_TAS (!TARGET_COLDFIRE || TARGET_ISAB || TARGET_ISAC)
Yes, that looks correct.
Thanks.
Ralf, I've committed the following to mainline. Please try your rtems
testing again, and if that works I'll push the patch to 4.7 branch.
r~
* config/m68k/m68k.h (ISA_HAS_TAS): New.
* config/m68k/sync.md (atomic_test_and_set): Use it.
(atomic_test_and_set_1): Likewise.
diff --git a/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.h b/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.h
index dbb9756..42d3779 100644
--- a/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.h
+++ b/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.h
@@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
/* Some instructions are common to more than one ISA. */
#define ISA_HAS_MVS_MVZ(TARGET_ISAB || TARGET_ISAC)
#define ISA_HAS_FF1(TARGET_ISAAPLUS || TARGET_ISAC)
+#define ISA_HAS_TAS(!TARGET_COLDFIRE || TARGET_ISAB || TARGET_ISAC)
#define TUNE_68000 (m68k_tune == u68000)
#define TUNE_68010 (m68k_tune == u68010)
diff --git a/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md b/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md
index 6c840f5..d5cab79 100644
--- a/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md
+++ b/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
[(match_operand:QI 0 register_operand ) ;; bool success output
(match_operand:QI 1 memory_operand );; memory
(match_operand:SI 2 const_int_operand )];; model
-
+ ISA_HAS_TAS
{
rtx t = gen_reg_rtx (QImode);
emit_insn (gen_atomic_test_and_set_1 (t, operands[1]));
@@ -77,5 +77,5 @@
UNSPECV_TAS_1))
(set (match_dup 1)
(unspec_volatile:QI [(match_dup 1)] UNSPECV_TAS_2))]
-
+ ISA_HAS_TAS
tas %1\;sne %0)
Re: [PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
On 03/06/2012 07:22 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: On 03/06/12 09:55, Andreas Schwab wrote: Richard Hendersonr...@redhat.com writes: On 03/06/12 02:13, Andreas Schwab wrote: Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes: * Incompatiblible/insufficient binutils (I am using binutils-2.22)? * Some as/ld-flags getting lost/improperly propagated during assembly/linking? * Bad/incompatible inline-asm hard-coded somewhere? TAS needs at least ISA_B, ie. at least CFV4. So... the correct test is what... #define ISA_HAS_TAS (!TARGET_COLDFIRE || TARGET_ISAB || TARGET_ISAC) Yes, that looks correct. Thanks. Ralf, I've committed the following to mainline. Please try your rtems testing again, and if that works I'll push the patch to 4.7 branch. Thanks, gcc-4_7-branch now finished bootstrapping for --target=m68k-rtems4.11 with your patch applied. Ralf
[PATCH][target/52481] m68k-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-03-04
21:01:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 26827
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26827
reduced test case in C
Depends on target CPU selection. -mcpu=680[012346]0 and -mcpu=cpu32 all work,
but -mcpu=5206 (or apparently any other coldfire) ICEs.
Indeed. Fixed by not trying to use negqi2 directly, but going
through the normal expanders which will DTRT for coldfire.
Tested via cross-compile, committed to mainline and 4.7.
r~
PR target/52481
* config/m68k/sync.md (atomic_test_and_set): Use expand_simple_unop
instead of calling negqi2 directly.
diff --git a/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md b/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md
index 5d5002a..6c840f5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md
+++ b/gcc/config/m68k/sync.md
@@ -62,8 +62,11 @@
(match_operand:SI 2 const_int_operand )];; model
{
- emit_insn (gen_atomic_test_and_set_1 (operands[0], operands[1]));
- emit_insn (gen_negqi2 (operands[0], operands[0]));
+ rtx t = gen_reg_rtx (QImode);
+ emit_insn (gen_atomic_test_and_set_1 (t, operands[1]));
+ t = expand_simple_unop (QImode, NEG, t, operands[0], 0);
+ if (t != operands[0])
+emit_move_insn (operands[0], t);
DONE;
})
