public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13
@ 2023-09-21 19:53 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 19:55 ` [Bug target/111528] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 more replies)
0 siblings, 7 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-09-21 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
Bug ID: 111528
Summary: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with
-fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Started with r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3.
$ ./f951 -quiet -Iinclude /tmp/pr80494.f90 -std=gnu -O2
-fstack-protector-strong
/tmp/pr80494.f90:32:22:
32 | end subroutine CalcCgr
| ^
Error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 382 381 189 19 (parallel [
(set (reg:DF 34 v2 [orig:117 _46 ] [117])
(mem:DF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 31 sp)
(const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8])) [8 zadj[_142]+0 S8
A64]))
(set (reg:DF 32 v0 [orig:127 _76 ] [127])
(mem:DF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 31 sp)
(const_int 0 [0])) [8 zadj[_142]+8 S8 A64]))
]) -1
(nil))
during RTL pass: cprop_hardreg
/tmp/pr80494.f90:32:22: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.cc:2791
0x7869e0 _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
const*)
/home/mpolacek/src/gcc13/gcc/rtl-error.cc:108
0x7869fc _fatal_insn_not_found(rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char const*)
/home/mpolacek/src/gcc13/gcc/rtl-error.cc:116
0x78535f extract_insn(rtx_insn*)
/home/mpolacek/src/gcc13/gcc/recog.cc:2791
0xef3cab extract_constrain_insn(rtx_insn*)
/home/mpolacek/src/gcc13/gcc/recog.cc:2690
0xef7cf7 copyprop_hardreg_forward_1
/home/mpolacek/src/gcc13/gcc/regcprop.cc:826
0xef8f34 execute
/home/mpolacek/src/gcc13/gcc/regcprop.cc:1408
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-09-21 19:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 20:00 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-09-21 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Should have been fixed with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=4bb1ae3c13ce4fb72129229de66f5ffbcd45fe4c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 19:55 ` [Bug target/111528] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-09-21 20:00 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-24 21:26 ` [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-09-21 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I see the ICE even with r13-7827-g4bb1ae3c13ce4f in the tree.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 19:55 ` [Bug target/111528] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 20:00 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-09-24 21:26 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-11 9:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-09-24 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #3 from Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This was the problem that g:10d59b802a7db9ae908291fb20627c1493cfa26c fixed. I
wasn't sure it was worth backporting because it only triggers for out-of-bounds
array accesses, or uninitialised Fortran array indices.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-09-24 21:26 ` [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-10-11 9:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-18 17:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-11 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
That is still ICE on valid code, the code with the out of bounds access or some
other UB might not be ever reachable at runtime, it can even not appear in the
source at all and can be just a result of jump threading on unrelated condition
etc.
So I think we certainly want to backport it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-11 9:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-10-18 17:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 9:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 22:21 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-18 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
<rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f5e56c5857cc6b704446c3666213468d25f6dcb2
commit r13-7961-gf5e56c5857cc6b704446c3666213468d25f6dcb2
Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Date: Wed Oct 18 18:44:57 2023 +0100
lra: Avoid unfolded plus-0
While backporting another patch to an earlier release, I hit a
situation in which lra_eliminate_regs_1 would eliminate an address to:
(plus (reg:P R) (const_int 0))
This address compared not-equal to plain:
(reg:P R)
which caused an ICE in a later peephole2. (The ICE showed up in
gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr80464.f90 on the branch but seems
to be latent on trunk.)
These unfolded PLUSes shouldn't occur in the insn stream, and later code
in the same function tried to avoid them.
gcc/
PR target/111528
* lra-eliminations.cc (lra_eliminate_regs_1): Use
simplify_gen_binary
rather than gen_rtx_PLUS.
(cherry picked from commit 10d59b802a7db9ae908291fb20627c1493cfa26c)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-18 17:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-10-19 9:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 22:21 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-19 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
<rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a527b809f99d3f05df16f792b2de6b32fa0d579
commit r12-9930-g6a527b809f99d3f05df16f792b2de6b32fa0d579
Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Date: Thu Oct 19 10:49:19 2023 +0100
lra: Avoid unfolded plus-0
While backporting another patch to an earlier release, I hit a
situation in which lra_eliminate_regs_1 would eliminate an address to:
(plus (reg:P R) (const_int 0))
This address compared not-equal to plain:
(reg:P R)
which caused an ICE in a later peephole2. (The ICE showed up in
gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr80464.f90 on the branch but seems
to be latent on trunk.)
These unfolded PLUSes shouldn't occur in the insn stream, and later code
in the same function tried to avoid them.
gcc/
PR target/111528
* lra-eliminations.cc (lra_eliminate_regs_1): Use
simplify_gen_binary
rather than gen_rtx_PLUS.
(cherry picked from commit 10d59b802a7db9ae908291fb20627c1493cfa26c)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-19 9:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-10-19 22:21 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-19 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #7 from Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on GCC 12 and 13 branches. I'm a bit nervous about backporting the fix
to GCC 11 given that the next release will be the last.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-19 22:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-09-21 19:53 [Bug target/111528] New: aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 19:55 ` [Bug target/111528] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-21 20:00 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-24 21:26 ` [Bug target/111528] aarch64: Test gfortran.dg/pr80494.f90 fails with -fstack-protector-strong with gcc-13 since r13-7813-gb96e66fd4ef3e3 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-11 9:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-18 17:45 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 9:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 22:21 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
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).