On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >+ /* For aggregates compare only the size and mode. Accesses to fields
> > >do have
> > >+ a type information by themselves and thus we only care if we can i.e.
> > >+ use the types in move operations. */
> > > else if (AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (inner_type)
> > > && TREE_CODE (inner_type) == TREE_CODE (outer_type))
> > >- return false;
> > >+ return (!TYPE_SIZE (outer_type)
> > >+ || (TYPE_SIZE (inner_type)
> > >+ && operand_equal_p (TYPE_SIZE (inner_type),
> > >+ TYPE_SIZE (outer_type), 0)));
> > >+
> > >+ else if (TREE_CODE (inner_type) == OFFSET_TYPE
> > >+ && TREE_CODE (inner_type) == TREE_CODE (outer_type))
> > >+ return useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (outer_type),
> > >+ TREE_TYPE (inner_type))
> > >+ && useless_type_conversion_p
> > >+ (TYPE_OFFSET_BASETYPE (outer_type),
> > >+ TYPE_OFFSET_BASETYPE (inner_type));
> > >
> >
> > The comment says the mode is compared, but I don't see that in the
> > code. Which is right?
The comment is wrong.
> > Also, wouldn't the final condition be clearer written as
> >
> > > + else if (TREE_CODE (inner_type) == OFFSET_TYPE
> > > + && TREE_CODE (outer_type) == OFFSET_TYPE)
>
> Updated in my local copy, thanks!
The patch works for me but I'm not sure about the store_expr_with_bounds
change. Where does the actual copying take place? adjust_address_nv
just adjusts the mode ...
Index: gcc/expr.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/expr.c (revision 228514)
+++ gcc/expr.c (working copy)
@@ -5462,7 +5462,7 @@ store_expr_with_bounds (tree exp, rtx ta
{
if (GET_MODE (temp) != GET_MODE (target) && GET_MODE (temp) !=
VOIDmode)
{
- if (GET_MODE (target) == BLKmode)
+ if (GET_MODE (target) == BLKmode || MEM_P (target))
{
/* Handle calls that return BLKmode values in registers. */
if (REG_P (temp) && TREE_CODE (exp) == CALL_EXPR)
works for me as well (for the testcase that ICEd for you) and it
definitely will emit the copy. Basically if it is a MEM the mode
should be irrelevant (do we have BLKmode things that are _not_ MEMs?).
Anyway, your expr.c hunk looks wrong (no copy) and I'll let somebody
more familiar with that area do the sort-out. Unfortunately
that ICEing testcase isn't a runtime one ;)
Richard.
