[backport proposed 4.9 patch <mikpe@it.uu.se>]

List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
Subject: [ARM] Fix ICE in minipool handling at -Os
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:20:35 +0100

We ran into an ICE at -Os on the 4.7 branch for ARM (BE/VFPv3/ARM):

FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/920928-2.c  -Os  (internal compiler error)

It's an assertion deep in the ARM back-end:

  /* If an insn doesn't have a range defined for it, then it isn't
     expecting to be reworked by this code.  Better to stop now than
     to generate duff assembly code.  */
  gcc_assert (fix->forwards || fix->backwards);

This happens for arm_zero_extendhisi2_v6, but I fail to see what is different 
for it from arm_extendhisi2_v6, which is expecting to be reworked.

Hence the attached patch, which copies attributes from arm_extendhisi2_v6 to 
arm_zero_extendhisi2_v6.  No regressions on ARM, OK for the mainline?


2013-03-23  Eric Botcazou  <ebotcazou@adacore.com>

	* config/arm/arm.md (arm_zero_extendhisi2): Add pool_range and
	neg_pool_range attributes.
	(arm_zero_extendhisi2_v6): Likewise.

--- gcc-4.8.0/gcc/config/arm/arm.md.~1~	2013-02-22 15:23:12.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc-4.8.0/gcc/config/arm/arm.md	2013-03-23 20:39:52.534104133 +0100
@@ -4650,7 +4650,9 @@ (define_insn "*arm_zero_extendhisi2"
    #
    ldr%(h%)\\t%0, %1"
   [(set_attr "type" "alu_shift,load_byte")
-   (set_attr "predicable" "yes")]
+   (set_attr "predicable" "yes")
+   (set_attr "pool_range" "*,256")
+   (set_attr "neg_pool_range" "*,244")]
 )
 
 (define_insn "*arm_zero_extendhisi2_v6"
@@ -4660,8 +4662,10 @@ (define_insn "*arm_zero_extendhisi2_v6"
   "@
    uxth%?\\t%0, %1
    ldr%(h%)\\t%0, %1"
-  [(set_attr "predicable" "yes")
-   (set_attr "type" "simple_alu_shift,load_byte")]
+  [(set_attr "type" "simple_alu_shift,load_byte")
+   (set_attr "predicable" "yes")
+   (set_attr "pool_range" "*,256")
+   (set_attr "neg_pool_range" "*,244")]
 )
 
 (define_insn "*arm_zero_extendhisi2addsi"