> 2023年7月12日 15:44，Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 5:20 AM YunQiang Su <yunqiang...@cipunited.com> wrote:
>>
>> PR #104914
>>
>> When work with
>> int val;
>> ((unsigned char*)&val)[0] = *buf;
>> The RTX mode is obtained from REG instead of SUBREG,
>> which make D<INS> is used instead of <INS>.
>> Thus something wrong happens on sign-extend default architectures,
>> like MIPS64.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> PR: 104914.
>> * expmed.cc(store_bit_field_1): Get mode from original
>> str_rtx instead of op0.
>> ---
>> gcc/expmed.cc | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/expmed.cc b/gcc/expmed.cc
>> index fbd4ce2d42f..37f90912122 100644
>> --- a/gcc/expmed.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/expmed.cc
>> @@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ store_bit_field_1 (rtx str_rtx, poly_uint64 bitsize,
>> poly_uint64 bitnum,
>> if we aren't. This must come after the entire register case above,
>> since that case is valid for any mode. The following cases are only
>> valid for integral modes. */
>> - opt_scalar_int_mode op0_mode = int_mode_for_mode (GET_MODE (op0));
>> + opt_scalar_int_mode op0_mode = int_mode_for_mode (GET_MODE (str_rtx));
>
> I don't think this is correct - op0_mode is used to store into op0, and we are
> just requiring that it is an integer mode and equal to the original
> mode. I suppose
> your patch makes us go to the fallback code instead, but it's surely
> for the wrong
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.cc b/gcc/expmed.cc
index fbd4ce2d42f..feee8c82f59 100644
--- a/gcc/expmed.cc
+++ b/gcc/expmed.cc
@@ -850,6 +861,7 @@ store_bit_field_1 (rtx str_rtx, poly_uint64 bitsize,
poly_uint64 bitnum,
since that case is valid for any mode. The following cases are only
valid for integral modes. */
opt_scalar_int_mode op0_mode = int_mode_for_mode (GET_MODE (op0));
+ opt_scalar_int_mode str_mode = int_mode_for_mode (GET_MODE (str_rtx));
scalar_int_mode imode;
if (!op0_mode.exists (&imode) || imode != GET_MODE (op0))
{
@@ -881,8 +893,14 @@ store_bit_field_1 (rtx str_rtx, poly_uint64 bitsize,
poly_uint64 bitnum,
op0 = gen_lowpart (op0_mode.require (), op0);
}
- return store_integral_bit_field (op0, op0_mode, ibitsize, ibitnum,
- bitregion_start, bitregion_end,
+ bool use_str_mode = false;
+ if (GET_MODE_CLASS(GET_MODE (str_rtx)) == MODE_INT
+ && GET_MODE_CLASS(GET_MODE (op0)) == MODE_INT
+ && known_gt (GET_MODE_SIZE(GET_MODE(op0)),
GET_MODE_SIZE(GET_MODE(str_rtx))))
+ use_str_mode = true;
+ return store_integral_bit_field (op0,
+ use_str_mode ? str_mode : op0_mode,
+ ibitsize, ibitnum, bitregion_start,
bitregion_end,
fieldmode, value, reverse, fallback_p);
}
> reason. I also wonder why we don't just check GET_MODE_CLASS
> (GET_MODE (op0)) == MODE_CLASS_INT ...
>
In fact I have no idea. Maybe there are some other tricky cases.
>> scalar_int_mode imode;
>> if (!op0_mode.exists (&imode) || imode != GET_MODE (op0))
>> {
>> --
>> 2.30.2
