[Bug c/26933] New: Volatile member in struct member accessed/written implicitly

[Bug c/26933] New: Volatile member in struct member accessed/written implicitly

[ivan at vmfacility dot fr]

This actually occurs on 3.3.3 and 4.0.3 (haven't tried others).

When a structure contains a 32 bit int, and because of alignement, it is not
located on a 64 bit boundary *and* (apparently) the compiler aligns a bitfield
int on the first fullword, operations on that bitfield implicitly access the
volatile member.

For exemple, the following structure is affected :

struct foo
{
    long long A;
    int B:1;
    volatile int C;
};

In this case, storing into foo.b triggers a load and a store from foo.C.

The following code sample demonstrates that :

struct _test1
{
        long long A;
        int B:1;
        volatile int C;
};

unsigned int foo(struct _test1 *data)
{
        data->B=1;
        return data->C;
}

Generating assembler output with "gcc -m64 foo.c -S" shows the following for
function "foo" (comments are my own)

        ld 9,112(31) * Get "data"
        ld 11,8(9) * get data->B 64 bit value - including data->C
        li 0,-1 * Set
        rldicr 0,0,0,0 * The Right 
        or 0,11,0 * Bit and
        std 0,8(9) * Store 64 bit value Including data->C
        ld 9,112(31) * get data again 
        lwz 0,12(9) * get C for return

If data->C is altered somewhere else (thread for exemple) or if read or writing
C has a side affect (I/O area) then although the code has never explicitly
accessed or stored data in the code, the program will implictly access or store
in that field - thus defeating the purpose of the 'volatile' type specifier.

Note that this occurs EVEN without optimization.

This problem may or may not affect other 64 bit platforms (this depends whether
it is insns generation related or backend related or both).

*Possible Workaround*

If feasable - align serializable 32 bit ints manually to ensure 64 bit
alignement.

Note that I also have a 'working' program that demonstrates the volatile
variable being altered without being accessed explicitly... I can provide it if
necessary.

--Ivan


-- 
           Summary: Volatile member in struct member accessed/written
                    implicitly
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.3
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: ivan at vmfacility dot fr
 GCC build triplet: powerpc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: powerpc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc64-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26933

[Bug c/26933] Volatile member in struct member accessed/written implicitly

[ivan at vmfacility dot fr]

------- Comment #1 from ivan at vmfacility dot fr  2006-03-29 21:18 -------
Created an attachment (id=11158)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11158&action=view)
Runnable program demonstrating the problem

This program, once compiled for powerpc64 and run on powerpc64 demonstrates a
volatile field being implicitly accessed/changed by the explicit change of a
neighbouring value.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26933

[Bug middle-end/26933] Volatile member in struct member accessed/written implicitly

[bje at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-04-01 01:00:38
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26933

[Bug middle-end/26933] Volatile member in struct member accessed/written implicitly

[bje at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-09 06:17 -------
Reproduced.


-- 

bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to fail|                            |4.4.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26933