[Bug middle-end/21180] New: [4.1 Regression] checking on fold is no longer happen in some cases

[Bug middle-end/21180] New: [4.1 Regression] checking on fold is no longer happen in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

the changes to use "fold_buildN" instead of "fold (buildN", makes us no do fold checking in those case.
This PR records that face.

-- 
           Summary: [4.1 Regression] checking on fold is no longer happen in
                    some cases
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold is no longer happen in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[kazu at cs dot umass dot edu]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.1 Regression] checking on|[4.1 Regression] checking on
                   |fold is no longer happen in |fold no longer happens in
                   |some cases                  |some cases


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-06-15 03:17 -------
Confirmed, I might get around to doing this.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-06-15 03:17:36
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-04 12:18 -------
Testing a patch for this.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-04 17:03 -------
s/face/fact/
This is the patch I am testing right now:

      * fold-const.c (fold_build1): Add checksum for the operands.
      (fold_build2): Likewise.
      (fold_build3): Likewise.

Index: fold-const.c
===============================================================
====
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c,v
retrieving revision 1.600
diff -u -p -r1.600 fold-const.c
--- fold-const.c	2 Jul 2005 16:24:25 -0000	1.600
+++ fold-const.c	4 Jul 2005 17:02:26 -0000
@@ -10322,11 +10322,33 @@ recursive_label:
 tree
 fold_build1 (enum tree_code code, tree type, tree op0)
 {
-  tree tem = fold_unary (code, type, op0);
-  if (tem)
-    return tem;
-
-  return build1 (code, type, op0);
+  tree tem;
+#ifdef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING
+  unsigned char checksum_before[16], checksum_after[16];
+  struct md5_ctx ctx;
+  htab_t ht;
+
+  ht = htab_create (32, htab_hash_pointer, htab_eq_pointer, NULL);
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op0, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_before);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+#endif
+  
+  tem = fold_unary (code, type, op0);
+  if (!tem)
+    tem = build1 (code, type, op0);
+  
+#ifdef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op0, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_after);
+  htab_delete (ht);
+
+  if (memcmp (checksum_before, checksum_after, 16))
+    fold_check_failed (op0, tem);
+#endif
+  return tem;
 }
 
 /* Fold a binary tree expression with code CODE of type TYPE with
@@ -10337,11 +10359,49 @@ fold_build1 (enum tree_code code, tree t
 tree
 fold_build2 (enum tree_code code, tree type, tree op0, tree op1)
 {
-  tree tem = fold_binary (code, type, op0, op1);
-  if (tem)
-    return tem;
+  tree tem;
+#ifdef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING
+  unsigned char checksum_before_op0[16],
+                checksum_before_op1[16],
+		checksum_after_op0[16],
+		checksum_after_op1[16];
+  struct md5_ctx ctx;
+  htab_t ht;
+
+  ht = htab_create (32, htab_hash_pointer, htab_eq_pointer, NULL);
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op0, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_before_op0);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op1, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_before_op1);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+#endif
+
+  tem = fold_binary (code, type, op0, op1);
+  if (!tem)
+    tem = build2 (code, type, op0, op1);
+  
+#ifdef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op0, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_after_op0);
+  htab_empty (ht);
 
-  return build2 (code, type, op0, op1);
+  if (memcmp (checksum_before_op0, checksum_after_op0, 16))
+    fold_check_failed (op0, tem);
+  
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op1, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_after_op1);
+  htab_delete (ht);
+
+  if (memcmp (checksum_before_op1, checksum_after_op1, 16))
+    fold_check_failed (op1, tem);
+#endif
+  return tem;
 }
 
 /* Fold a ternary tree expression with code CODE of type TYPE with
@@ -10351,12 +10411,64 @@ fold_build2 (enum tree_code code, tree t
 
 tree
 fold_build3 (enum tree_code code, tree type, tree op0, tree op1, tree op2)
-{
-  tree tem = fold_ternary (code, type, op0, op1, op2);
-  if (tem)
-    return tem;
+{  tree tem;
+#ifdef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING
+  unsigned char checksum_before_op0[16],
+                checksum_before_op1[16],
+                checksum_before_op2[16],
+		checksum_after_op0[16],
+		checksum_after_op1[16],
+		checksum_after_op2[16];
+  struct md5_ctx ctx;
+  htab_t ht;
+
+  ht = htab_create (32, htab_hash_pointer, htab_eq_pointer, NULL);
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op0, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_before_op0);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op1, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_before_op1);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op2, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_before_op2);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+#endif
+  
+  tem = fold_ternary (code, type, op0, op1, op2);
+  if (!tem)
+    tem =  build3 (code, type, op0, op1, op2);
+      
+#ifdef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op0, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_after_op0);
+  htab_empty (ht);
 
-  return build3 (code, type, op0, op1, op2);
+  if (memcmp (checksum_before_op0, checksum_after_op0, 16))
+    fold_check_failed (op0, tem);
+  
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op1, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_after_op1);
+  htab_empty (ht);
+
+  if (memcmp (checksum_before_op1, checksum_after_op1, 16))
+    fold_check_failed (op1, tem);
+  
+  md5_init_ctx (&ctx);
+  fold_checksum_tree (op2, &ctx, ht);
+  md5_finish_ctx (&ctx, checksum_after_op2);
+  htab_delete (ht);
+
+  if (memcmp (checksum_before_op2, checksum_after_op2, 16))
+    fold_check_failed (op2, tem);
+#endif
+  return tem;
 }
 
 /* Perform constant folding and related simplification of initializer




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-04 18:16 -------
Patch posted here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00205.html>.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
                   |                            |patches/2005-
                   |                            |07/msg00205.html
           Keywords|                            |patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru]

------- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru  2005-07-13 10:31 -------
This patch does'n work now, it fails on any input:

<built-in>:0: internal compiler error: tree check: expected function_decl, have
type_decl in fold_checksum_tree, at fold-const.c:10288

#0  internal_error (gmsgid=0xc377c8 "tree check: %s, have %s in %s, at %s:%d")
    at ../../gcc41/gcc/diagnostic.c:534
#1  0x000000000098ba01 in tree_check_failed (node=0x2aaaaaf9e340, 
    file=0xba6438 "../../gcc41/gcc/fold-const.c", line=10288, 
    function=0xdf5d90 "fold_checksum_tree") at ../../gcc41/gcc/tree.c:5778
#2  0x0000000000731e54 in fold_checksum_tree (expr=0x2aaaaaf9e340, 
    ctx=0x7fffffa5c0f0, ht=0xec7730) at ../../gcc41/gcc/fold-const.c:10288
#3  0x00000000007322a1 in fold_checksum_tree (expr=0x7fffffa5bb70, 
    ctx=0x7fffffa5c0f0, ht=0xec7730) at ../../gcc41/gcc/fold-const.c:10302
#4  0x000000000073160f in fold_checksum_tree (expr=0x2aaaaaf835d0, 
    ctx=0x7fffffa5c0f0, ht=0xec7730) at ../../gcc41/gcc/fold-const.c:10231
#5  0x0000000000732781 in fold_build2 (code=MINUS_EXPR, type=0x2aaaaaf91000, 
    op0=0x2aaaaaf835d0, op1=0x2aaaaaf835d0)
    at ../../gcc41/gcc/fold-const.c:10379
#6  0x0000000000959db6 in layout_type (type=0x2aaaaafa1c60)
    at ../../gcc41/gcc/stor-layout.c:1715
#7  0x000000000097f3b8 in type_hash_lookup (hashcode=196468616, 
    type=0x2aaaaafa1c60) at ../../gcc41/gcc/tree.c:3922
#8  0x000000000097f4f1 in type_hash_canon (hashcode=196468616, 
    type=0x2aaaaafa1c60) at ../../gcc41/gcc/tree.c:3972
#9  0x0000000000986088 in build_array_type (elt_type=0x2aaaaafa1b00, 
    index_type=0x2aaaaafa1bb0) at ../../gcc41/gcc/tree.c:4846
#10 0x00000000009f6c4e in ix86_build_builtin_va_list ()
    at ../../gcc41/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:3402
#11 0x000000000098d191 in build_common_tree_nodes_2 (short_double=0)
    at ../../gcc41/gcc/tree.c:6097
#12 0x0000000000464b00 in c_common_nodes_and_builtins ()


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2005-06-30 13:11:22         |2005-07-13 10:31:11
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru]

------- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru  2005-07-13 10:51 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> This patch does'n work now, it fails on any input:

ignore this comment, failure is not related to this patch.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-21 19:36 -------
Fixed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-21 19:36 -------
Subject: Bug 21180

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	pinskia@gcc.gnu.org	2005-07-21 19:36:51

Modified files:
	gcc            : ChangeLog fold-const.c 

Log message:
	2005-07-21  Andrew Pinski  <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
	
	PR middle-end/21180
	* fold-const.c (fold_build1): Add checksum for the operands.
	(fold_build2): Likewise.
	(fold_build3): Likewise.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.9502&r2=2.9503
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.607&r2=1.608



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180

[Bug middle-end/21180] [4.1 Regression] checking on fold no longer happens in some cases

[dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 21180 depends on bug 22455, which changed state.

Bug 22455 Summary: [4.1 regression] ICE tree check: expected function_decl, have type_decl in fold_checksum_tree, at fold-const.c:10282
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22455

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21180