Upstream-Status: Backport
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>

From patchwork Fri Apr 19 09:34:49 2013
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ARM] Fix PR56797
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:34:49 -0000
From: Greta Yorsh <Greta.Yorsh@arm.com>
X-Patchwork-Id: 237891
Message-Id: <000801ce3ce1$23fbdd60$6bf39820$@yorsh@arm.com>
To: "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: <raj.khem@gmail.com>, "Richard Earnshaw" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
 "Ramana Radhakrishnan" <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>

Fix PR56797
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797

The problem is that peephole optimizer thinks it can generate an ldm, but
the pattern for ldm no longer matches, because after r188738 it requires
that if one of the destination registers is SP then the base register must
be SP, and it's not SP in the test case. 

The test case fails on armv5t but doesn't fail on armv6t2 or armv7-a because
peephole doesn't trigger there (because there is a different epilogue
sequence). It looks like a latent problem for other architecture or CPUs.

This patch adds this condition to the peephole optimizer.

No regression on qemu for arm-none-eabi and fixes the test reported in the
PR. I couldn't minimize the test sufficiently to include it in the
testsuite. 

Ok for trunk?

Thanks,
Greta

gcc/ 

2013-04-18  Greta Yorsh  <Greta.Yorsh@arm.com>
	
	PR target/56797
	* config/arm/arm.c (load_multiple_sequence): Require SP
        as base register for loads if SP is in the register list.


diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
index d00849c..60fef78 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -10347,6 +10347,13 @@ load_multiple_sequence (rtx *operands, int nops, int *regs, int *saved_order,
 	      || (i != nops - 1 && unsorted_regs[i] == base_reg))
 	    return 0;
 
+          /* Don't allow SP to be loaded unless it is also the base
+             register.  It guarantees that SP is reset correctly when
+             an LDM instruction is interruptted.  Otherwise, we might
+             end up with a corrupt stack.  */
+          if (unsorted_regs[i] == SP_REGNUM && base_reg != SP_REGNUM)
+            return 0;
+
 	  unsorted_offsets[i] = INTVAL (offset);
 	  if (i == 0 || unsorted_offsets[i] < unsorted_offsets[order[0]])
 	    order[0] = i;