From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-83319-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32065 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2014 22:06:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 32052 invoked by uid 89); 1 Apr 2014 22:06:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-vc0-f171.google.com
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f171.google.com) (209.85.220.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:06:40 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id lg15so10744892vcb.16        for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type;        bh=EI1kpqYVZ6/qofkKsBN9K3xfQ/f05qr95y4I0G8J04c=;        b=XjU5B1jjZhb9ODRGP8z/bFQ+Z12RPAN0SgMOqVInRVvfYI2KNaGjN4ZY+cPWoyeB2l         5PMG8SqrKik2I40eQSIaVij9p0dgmmaFfHChedouXRS0wD1+g9lAFq9PyneWnEWqw+4D         vTWIQTOzDgbHsCBiAvUm1XElHj3F2Nd4YNBwPCH6Xnr4DSK1uVnPr7lw6ExXybZf19zy         UK5VMS6NZrQehWn+kM8HHw3Ap/LtcFV1vonUEkHxoXalqaMrAgoL8gKmhzq2ipk2TrWg         oAcfcU+Ctu2KIss62F5Baaibku0TnCwAVNPuSfF58K2a8AvC7oURiL+atHcu240ml6eU         61Mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVEHwAmfOPzw5BL/ZVLhWM/LCWj4cTAhfUEbMqVUo0vMo70Uh8ozL+N88CizJukHW44FMxtClqCs/ipZMib9mEQy6hLuoQLwh5uo1LLZ0A97L297HdWTFPmhF6fp69qzMRMq4JIgEfoQTQBrpH35KDrBaN5im4VFBI9YK/Czh1E+BWYqI+60+F05XELg91dkXJOpdqVvdevO4hivNu8cHt4hGSiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.33.136 with SMTP id r8mr23090060vdi.2.1396389998009; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.184.202 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:06:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAAs8Hmwt-YWeOGNjOoBhLEbCnRMFsyDnpHYTJtYvioYCM3_b1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: ICF on PowerPC Bug
From: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>, binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, 	Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2

Hi,


This program fails with ICF on powerpc:

__attribute__((noinline))
int foo () { return 1; }

__attribute__((noinline))
int bar () { return 0; }

__attribute__((noinline))
int fold1() {
  return foo ();
}

__attribute__((noinline))
int fold2() {
  return bar();
}

int main()
{
  assert (fold1() != fold2());
}

because fold2 is folded onto fold1.    The only way to differentiate
fold1 and fold2 which have the same object code is via the relocation
type and the Info value is different.  However, with powerpc this is
rewritten here in icf.cc:

// Look through function descriptors
parameters->target().function_location(&loc);
 if (loc.shndx != it_v->second)
{
 it_v->second = loc.shndx;
 // Modify symvalue/addend to the code entry.
 it_a->first = loc.offset;
 it_a->second = 0;
}

I am not sure how to fix it.

Thanks
Sri