[Mono-bugs] [Bug 69785][Wis] New - [PPC] refanytype not working

[bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com]

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

Changed by grompf@sublimeintervention.com.

http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=69785

--- shadow/69785	2004-11-21 20:52:07.000000000 -0500
+++ shadow/69785.tmp.5249	2004-11-21 20:52:07.000000000 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Bug#: 69785
+Product: Mono: Runtime
+Version: 1.1
+OS: 
+OS Details: 
+Status: NEW   
+Resolution: 
+Severity: 
+Priority: Wishlist
+Component: misc
+AssignedTo: mono-bugs@ximian.com                            
+ReportedBy: grompf@sublimeintervention.com               
+QAContact: mono-bugs@ximian.com
+TargetMilestone: ---
+URL: 
+Cc: 
+Summary: [PPC] refanytype not working
+
+The attached testcase below is a subset of vararg.il.  The basic block output is:
+
+(for the important part)
+
+<snip>
+converting (in B8: stack: 0) IL_002c: ldloc.s   1
+converting (in B8: stack: 1) IL_002e: refanytype
+converting (in B8: stack: 1) IL_0030: call      0x0a000001
+converting (in B8: stack: 1) IL_0035: ldtoken   0x1b000001
+converting (in B8: stack: 2) IL_003f: ceq       
+converting (in B8: stack: 1) IL_0041: brfalse   IL_004c
+<snip>
+
+DUMP BLOCK 8:
+ (outarg_vt (refanytype (ldobj regoffset[0x34(ppc_r31)])))
+ (stind.ref regoffset[0x54(ppc_r31)] call[GetTypeFromHandle])
+ (beq[B9B10] (compare (ceq (compare (ldind.ref regoffset[0x54(ppc_r31)]) iconst[4570800])) 
+iconst[0]))
+
+<snip>
+LOCAL regalloc: basic block: 8
+        1  move R33 <- ppc_r31
+        2  add_imm R33 <- R33
+        3  load_membase R32 <- R33
+        4  setreg ppc_r3 <- ppc_r0 clobbers: r
+        5  call R34 <- clobbers: c
+        6  store_membase_reg ppc_r31 <- R34
+        7  load_membase R36 <- ppc_r31
+        8  compare_imm R36
+        9  ceq R35 <-
+        10 compare_imm R35
+        11 beq
+
+like 4 doing the setreg of ppc_r0 -> r3 is improper before the call; the call should pass the R32 
+value in ppc_r3.
+
+The asm for this block is
+000000f0        or      r3,r31,r31
+000000f4        addi    r3,r3,0x34
+000000f8        lwz     r3,0x0(r3)
+000000fc        or      r3,r0,r0
+00000100        bl      0x1d8
+00000104        stw     r3,0x54(r31)
+00000108        lis     r11,0x45
+0000010c        ori     r11,r11,0xbeb0
+00000110        cmpw    r3,r11
+00000114        li      r3,0x0
+00000118        bne     0x120
+0000011c        li      r3,0x1
+00000120        cmpwi   r3,0x0
+00000124        beq     0x140
+
+as you can see it does a mr r3,r0
+
+Should this not be (in this case) skipped?
+
+Am I missing something obvious?
+
+(I tested 1.0.4 as well so this isn't a (recent) regression afaik)
+
+-kangaroo