Hi!

While in C, x = 10 or ++x or --x aren't lvalues and so we reject such
expressions in inline asm output operands (and inputs that only allow
memory, not registers), in C++ they apparently are lvalues; for output
operands we ICE in the gimplifier on this, because in the generic code
MODIFY_EXPR or PREINCREMENT_EXPR or PREDECREMENT_EXPR aren't considered
to be lvalues, and for "m" inputs we just reject them, but when those
expressions are allowed on lhs of a store, they should be IMHO allowed
as "m" inputs too.

Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for
trunk?

2018-03-20  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR c++/84961
        * semantics.c (finish_asm_stmt): Replace MODIFY_EXPR, PREINCREMENT_EXPR
        and PREDECREMENT_EXPR in output and "m" constrained input operands with
        COMPOUND_EXPR.  Call cxx_mark_addressable on the rightmost
        COMPOUND_EXPR operand.

        * c-c++-common/pr43690.c: Don't expect errors on "m" (--x) and
        "m" (++x) in C++.
        * g++.dg/torture/pr84961-1.C: New test.
        * g++.dg/torture/pr84961-2.C: New test.

--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj       2018-03-20 11:58:17.069356145 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c  2018-03-20 21:56:43.745292245 +0100
@@ -1512,6 +1512,26 @@ finish_asm_stmt (int volatile_p, tree st
                      && C_TYPE_FIELDS_READONLY (TREE_TYPE (operand)))))
            cxx_readonly_error (operand, lv_asm);
 
+         tree *op = &operand;
+         while (TREE_CODE (*op) == COMPOUND_EXPR)
+           op = &TREE_OPERAND (*op, 1);
+         switch (TREE_CODE (*op))
+           {
+           case PREINCREMENT_EXPR:
+           case PREDECREMENT_EXPR:
+           case MODIFY_EXPR:
+             if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*op, 0)))
+               *op = build2 (TREE_CODE (*op), TREE_TYPE (*op),
+                             cp_stabilize_reference (TREE_OPERAND (*op, 0)),
+                             TREE_OPERAND (*op, 1));
+             *op = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (*op), *op,
+                           TREE_OPERAND (*op, 0));
+             op = &TREE_OPERAND (*op, 1);
+             break;
+           default:
+             break;
+           }
+
          constraint = TREE_STRING_POINTER (TREE_VALUE (TREE_PURPOSE (t)));
          oconstraints[i] = constraint;
 
@@ -1520,7 +1540,7 @@ finish_asm_stmt (int volatile_p, tree st
            {
              /* If the operand is going to end up in memory,
                 mark it addressable.  */
-             if (!allows_reg && !cxx_mark_addressable (operand))
+             if (!allows_reg && !cxx_mark_addressable (*op))
                operand = error_mark_node;
            }
          else
@@ -1562,7 +1582,30 @@ finish_asm_stmt (int volatile_p, tree st
                  /* Strip the nops as we allow this case.  FIXME, this really
                     should be rejected or made deprecated.  */
                  STRIP_NOPS (operand);
-                 if (!cxx_mark_addressable (operand))
+
+                 tree *op = &operand;
+                 while (TREE_CODE (*op) == COMPOUND_EXPR)
+                   op = &TREE_OPERAND (*op, 1);
+                 switch (TREE_CODE (*op))
+                   {
+                   case PREINCREMENT_EXPR:
+                   case PREDECREMENT_EXPR:
+                   case MODIFY_EXPR:
+                     if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (TREE_OPERAND (*op, 0)))
+                       *op
+                         = build2 (TREE_CODE (*op), TREE_TYPE (*op),
+                                   cp_stabilize_reference (TREE_OPERAND (*op,
+                                                           0)),
+                                   TREE_OPERAND (*op, 1));
+                     *op = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (*op), *op,
+                                   TREE_OPERAND (*op, 0));
+                     op = &TREE_OPERAND (*op, 1);
+                     break;
+                   default:
+                     break;
+                   }
+
+                 if (!cxx_mark_addressable (*op))
                    operand = error_mark_node;
                }
              else if (!allows_reg && !allows_mem)
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr43690.c.jj     2010-11-09 13:58:21.000000000 
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr43690.c        2018-03-20 21:58:43.077317034 
+0100
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ void
 foo (char *x)
 {
   asm ("" : : "m" (x++));      /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" } */
-  asm ("" : : "m" (++x));      /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" } */
+  asm ("" : : "m" (++x));      /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" "" 
{ target c } } */
   asm ("" : : "m" (x--));      /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" } */
-  asm ("" : : "m" (--x));      /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" } */
+  asm ("" : : "m" (--x));      /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" "" 
{ target c } } */
   asm ("" : : "m" (x + 1));    /* { dg-error "is not directly addressable" } */
 }
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr84961-1.C.jj 2018-03-20 21:51:17.231238830 
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr84961-1.C    2018-03-20 21:51:17.231238830 
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+// PR c++/84961
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+short a;
+volatile int b;
+int c, d;
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+  asm volatile ("" : "=r" (b = a));
+}
+
+void
+bar ()
+{
+  asm volatile ("" : "=r" (++c, ++d, b = a));
+}
+
+void
+baz ()
+{
+  asm volatile ("" : "=r" (--b));
+}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr84961-2.C.jj 2018-03-20 21:51:17.231238830 
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr84961-2.C    2018-03-20 21:51:17.231238830 
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+// PR c++/84961
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+short a;
+volatile int b;
+int c, d;
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+  asm volatile ("" : : "m" (b = a));
+}
+
+void
+bar ()
+{
+  asm volatile ("" : : "m" (++c, ++d, b = a));
+}
+
+void
+baz ()
+{
+  asm volatile ("" : : "m" (--b));
+}

        Jakub

Reply via email to