* [Bug c++/22488] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2010-10-01 12:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-16 10:46 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-10-01 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.5 |4.4.6
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-10-01 12:03 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-04-16 10:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-13 13:34 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-16 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.6 |4.4.7
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-10-01 12:03 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-16 10:46 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-13 13:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-02 13:28 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-13 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.7 |4.5.4
--- Comment #54 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-13 12:45:48 UTC ---
4.4 branch is being closed, moving to 4.5.4 target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-13 13:34 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-07-02 13:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-09 22:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-07-02 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.5.4 |4.6.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-07-02 13:28 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-11-09 22:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-30 0:30 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-11-09 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |alias
Status|ASSIGNED |WAITING
CC|dberlin at gcc dot gnu.org, |
|gcc-bugs at gcc dot |
|gnu.org, mark at |
|codesourcery dot com |
--- Comment #55 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-09 22:37:34 UTC ---
-ENOPROGRESS
What is the status of this bug, Jason?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] push_fields_onto_fieldstack calculates offset incorrectly
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-11-09 22:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-30 0:30 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-02 8:04 ` [Bug c++/22488] C++ frontend generates RECORD_TYPEs with overlapping FIELD_DECLs rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-02 14:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-30 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P5 |P2
Status|WAITING |NEW
AssignedTo|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
--- Comment #56 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-30 00:30:38 UTC ---
I still hope to get to this, but I don't anticipate it being a high priority
for me any time soon, so I'm going to unassign myself for now. I'm also going
to bump up the priority again.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] C++ frontend generates RECORD_TYPEs with overlapping FIELD_DECLs
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-30 0:30 ` [Bug c++/22488] [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-02 8:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-02 14:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-02 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.6.4 |---
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 |C++ frontend generates
|Regression] |RECORD_TYPEs with
|push_fields_onto_fieldstack |overlapping FIELD_DECLs
|calculates offset |
|incorrectly |
--- Comment #57 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-02 08:04:05 UTC ---
Re-confirmed and summary adjusted. The code in tree-ssa-structalias.c is
still there:
/* We can't sort them if we have a field with a variable sized type,
which will make notokay = true. In that case, we are going to return
without creating varinfos for the fields anyway, so sorting them is a
waste to boot. */
if (!notokay)
{
sort_fieldstack (fieldstack);
/* Due to some C++ FE issues, like PR 22488, we might end up
what appear to be overlapping fields even though they,
in reality, do not overlap. Until the C++ FE is fixed,
we will simply disable field-sensitivity for these cases. */
notokay = check_for_overlaps (fieldstack);
I am not aware of other code in the middle-end that might be confused
about this issue (well, SRA maybe, but it handles overlaps well as it
also handles accesses to unions).
I believe that the C++ frontend issue might not be a regression after all,
the tree-ssa-structalias.c "regression" was fixed by the above kludge.
The C++ frontend issue makes it impossible to implement a GENERIC verifier
for RECORD_TYPEs (verify FIELD_DECLs are sorted after offset and not
overlapping).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/22488] C++ frontend generates RECORD_TYPEs with overlapping FIELD_DECLs
[not found] <bug-22488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-02 8:04 ` [Bug c++/22488] C++ frontend generates RECORD_TYPEs with overlapping FIELD_DECLs rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-02 14:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-02 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
--- Comment #58 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-02 14:37:43 UTC ---
> The C++ frontend issue makes it impossible to implement a GENERIC verifier
> for RECORD_TYPEs (verify FIELD_DECLs are sorted after offset and not
> overlapping).
To be fair, I think that the Ada front-end still has the same issue. We fixed
the biggest source (constrained subtypes of record types with variant part) a
few releases ago, but there is still one problematic case (record type with
variant part and partial representation clause).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread