On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > This patch is to fix a potential bug in arm pattern "arm_movqi_insn". > > For the pattern, > (define_insn "*arm_movqi_insn" > [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,r,r,l,r,l,Uu,r,m") > (match_operand:QI 1 "general_operand" "r,r,I,Py,K,Uu,l,m,r"))] > "TARGET_32BIT > && ( register_operand (operands[0], QImode) > || register_operand (operands[1], QImode))" > "@ > mov%?\\t%0, %1 > mov%?\\t%0, %1 > mov%?\\t%0, %1 > mov%?\\t%0, %1 > mvn%?\\t%0, #%B1 > ldr%(b%)\\t%0, %1 > str%(b%)\\t%1, %0 > ldr%(b%)\\t%0, %1 > str%(b%)\\t%1, %0" > [(set_attr "type" > "mov_reg,mov_reg,mov_imm,mov_imm,mvn_imm,load1,store1,load1,store1") > (set_attr "predicable" "yes") > (set_attr "predicable_short_it" "yes,yes,yes,no,no,no,no,no,no") > (set_attr "arch" "t2,any,any,t2,any,t2,t2,any,any") > (set_attr "length" "2,4,4,2,4,2,2,4,4")] > ) > > Both predicate "general_operand" and constraint "m" of the 2nd operand > support load from constant pool. Problem is both attribute pool_range and > neg_pool_range are default to 0 because we don't set it explicitly. When > GCC comes to situation that it generates load from constant pool for this > pattern, function push_minipool_fix runs into assertion failure. > > This patch uses stricter constraint "Uh" just like r212303. This patch is > necessary for inlining memset calls on ARM target. > > It passes tests on > arm-none-eabi/arm-none-linux-gnueabi/arm-none-linux-gnueabihf with different > test variants. It also passes bootstrap and glibc build on > arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. Is it OK?
Ok if no regressions. Thanks, Ramana > > Thanks, > bin > > 2014-09-04 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > * config/arm/arm.md (arm_movqi_insn): Use Uh instead of m > constraint.
