public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/106833] Handle OPAQUE_TYPE in gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:26:07 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-106833-4-LHnJ9sXbKA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-106833-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106833 --- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1) > > IMHO this is an omission when we were adding supports for opaque type, const > > __vector_quad and __vector_quad should be taken as > > canonical_types_compatible. > > > > I wonder if we can simply take it just like what it handles for > > "Non-aggregate types", for example: > > > > diff --git a/gcc/tree.cc b/gcc/tree.cc > > index 2f488e4467c..555e96c59d5 100644 > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > @@ -13510,6 +13510,7 @@ gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p (const_tree t1, > > const_tree t2, > > || TREE_CODE (t1) == VECTOR_TYPE > > || TREE_CODE (t1) == COMPLEX_TYPE > > || TREE_CODE (t1) == OFFSET_TYPE > > + || TREE_CODE (t1) == OPAQUE_TYPE > > || POINTER_TYPE_P (t1)) > > { > > /* Can't be the same type if they have different recision. */ > > > > Or adding one default hook which does the similar thing, and then if one > > target needs some target specific checks on its opaque type, one specific > > hook can be provided. > > I'm quoting tree.def, emphasis mine: > > /* This is for types that will use MODE_OPAQUE in the back end. They are > meant > to be able to go in a register of some sort but are _EXPLICITLY NOT TO BE > CONVERTED_ or operated on like INTEGER_TYPE. They will have size and > alignment information only. */ > DEFTREECODE (OPAQUE_TYPE, "opaque_type", tcc_type, 0) > Good point! My fault, I didn't read through this documentation. It seems to say no conversions are allowed on it? (either explicit or implicit?) > so why should we care about special-casing them? The target should have set > TYPE_CANONICAL appropriately if necessary, why didn't it? Btw, 'const' > qualification should go into the type variant chain (well, for "normal" > types), where TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT is the unqualified type variant. > TYPE_CANONICAL > shouldn't come into play here. > With flag_checking on, while doing lto_fixup_state, verify_type will check every tree type, it further checks with verify_type_variant, then fails with gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p (t, tv, false). (here trust_type_canonical is false). I think this is a common issue for any cv-qualified opaque type when lto checking is on. In this case, t1: const __vector_quad t2: __vector_quad Both TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT and both TYPE_CANONICAL is exactly the same here (all equivalent to t2). > Btw, the whole idea of "opaque" is a hack and it seems to backfire now? Not sure, it had some adjustments with r11-5222 before, I thought we need some similar for this issue.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-05 9:26 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-09-05 8:01 [Bug middle-end/106833] New: " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-05 8:09 ` [Bug middle-end/106833] " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-05 8:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-05 8:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-05 9:26 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-09-05 9:29 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-05 9:58 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2022-09-05 16:25 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-06 3:40 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-06 21:21 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-07 4:28 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-07 4:31 ` [Bug middle-end/106833] Miss to handle OPAQUE_TYPE specially in verify_type linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-07 13:08 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-09 13:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-14 12:43 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-14 12:53 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-14 13:50 ` linkw 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-106833-4-LHnJ9sXbKA@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).