public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/102024] [12 Regression] zero width bitfields and ABIs Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 07:53:28 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-102024-4-xtTlKQDJkm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-102024-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e902136b310ee17d4b49eb42d9d5e487d5dcf4a1 commit r12-3324-ge902136b310ee17d4b49eb42d9d5e487d5dcf4a1 Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Date: Fri Sep 3 09:46:32 2021 +0200 c++, abi: Set DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD on C++ zero width bitfields [PR102024] The removal of remove_zero_width_bitfields function and its call from C++ FE layout_class_type (which I've done in the P0466R5 layout-compatible helper intrinsics patch, so that the FE can actually determine what is and isn't layout-compatible according to the spec) unfortunately changed the ABI on various platforms. The C FE has been keeping zero-width bitfields in the types, while the C++ FE has been removing them after structure layout, so in various cases when passing such structures in registers we had different ABI between C and C++. While both the C and C++ FE had some code to remove zero width bitfields after structure layout, in both FEs it was buggy and didn't really remove any. In the C FE that code has been removed later on, while in the C++ FE for GCC 4.5 in PR42217 it has been actually fixed, so the C++ FE started to remove those bitfields. The following patch doesn't change anything ABI-wise, but allows the targets to decide what to do, emit -Wpsabi warnings etc. Non-C zero width bitfields will be seen by the backends as normal zero width bitfields, C++ zero width bitfields that used to be previously removed will have DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD flag set. I've reused the DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED flag which is only used on non-bitfield FIELD_DECLs right now, but the macros now check DECL_BIT_FIELD flag. Each backend can then decide what it wants, whether it wants to keep different ABI between C and C++ as in GCC 11 and older (i.e. incompatible with G++ <= 4.4, compatible with G++ 4.5 .. 11), for that it would ignore for the aggregate passing/returning decisions all DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD FIELD_DECLs), whether it wants to never ignore zero width bitfields (no changes needed for that case, except perhaps -Wpsabi warning should be added and for that DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD can be tested), or whether it wants to always ignore zero width bitfields (I think e.g. riscv in GCC 10+ does that). All this patch does is set the flag which the backends can then use. 2021-09-03 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR target/102024 gcc/ * tree.h (DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED): Changed into rvalue only macro that is false if DECL_BIT_FIELD. (SET_DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED, DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD, SET_DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD): Define. * tree-streamer-out.c (pack_ts_decl_common_value_fields): For DECL_BIT_FIELD stream DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD instead of DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED. * tree-streamer-in.c (unpack_ts_decl_common_value_fields): Use SET_DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED instead of writing to DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED and for DECL_BIT_FIELD use SET_DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD instead. * lto-streamer-out.c (hash_tree): For DECL_BIT_FIELD hash DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD instead of DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED. gcc/cp/ * class.c (build_base_field): Use SET_DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED instead of writing to DECL_FIELD_ABI_IGNORED. (layout_class_type): Likewise. In the place where zero-width bitfields used to be removed, use SET_DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD on those fields instead. gcc/lto/ * lto-common.c (compare_tree_sccs_1): Also compare DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD values.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-03 7:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-23 14:36 [Bug target/102024] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 14:38 ` [Bug target/102024] [12 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 14:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 15:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 15:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 16:17 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 20:42 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-23 20:49 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-24 7:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-24 14:13 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-24 21:36 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-25 19:23 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-25 19:33 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-25 20:08 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-03 7:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-09-03 8:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-21 16:16 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-23 12:40 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-01-10 16:47 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-24 9:39 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-24 11:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-29 16:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-29 16:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 10:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 10:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 12:40 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 12:43 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 13:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 13:42 ` xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang 2022-03-30 13:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-30 14:34 ` xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang 2022-03-30 19:02 ` xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang 2022-03-31 12:36 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-31 12:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-31 15:08 ` xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang 2022-03-31 15:14 ` xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang 2022-04-01 9:50 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-01 14:39 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-01 14:39 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-02 0:47 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-27 7:23 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-102024-4-xtTlKQDJkm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).