Re: VOIDmode in ZERO_EXTEND crashed

[daniel tian <daniel dot xntian at gmail dot com>]

2009/10/12 Joern Rennecke <joern.rennecke@embecosm.com>:
> Quoting daniel tian <daniel.xntian@gmail.com>:
>
>> hi, everyone:
>> ? ? I have ported the gcc to new RISC chip. But when I build the
>> newlib with it, the gcc crashed in simplify-rtx.c.
>> ? ? error message is like this:
>>
>> ? ? ../../../../../newlib-1.16.0/newlib/libc/time/tzset_r.c: In
>> function _tzset_r?
>> ? ? ../../../../../newlib-1.16.0/newlib/libc/time/tzset_r.c:195:
>> internal compiler error: in simplify_const_unary_operation, at
>> simplify-rtx.c:1108
>>
>> ? ? And the code there is simplify-rtx.c 1108:
>>
>> ? ? case ZERO_EXTEND:
>> ? ? ? ? ?/* When zero-extending a CONST_INT, we need to know its
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? original mode. ?*/
>> ? ? ? ? ?gcc_assert (op_mode != VOIDmode);
>>
>> ? ? I tracked the gcc, It caused by the RTX ? (const_int 60). As I
>> know the CONST_INT is alway being VOIDmode.
>
> That exactly is the problem. ?You can't have a CONST_INT inside a
> ZERO_EXTEND. ?That is not valid.
> You'll need a separate pattern to recognize the CONST_INT without a
> ZERO_EXTEND around it. ?Unfortunately, this will not give reload
> the freedom it should have.
>


You mean I should remove the const_int (by predicator) in umulhisi3 pattern?
I mean if I remove it,  how to deal with the "reg = const_int * reg"
in umulhisi3 pattern.

Thank you very much.
                                                                     daniel.