* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
@ 2010-12-06 18:55 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2010-12-07 13:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-12-06 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2010.12.06 18:54:51
Component|other |middle-end
CC| |mjambor at suse dot cz
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Summary|ICE: edge points to wrong |[4.6 Regression] ICE: edge
|declaration |points to wrong declaration
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-12-06 18:54:51 UTC ---
ICE is caused by revision 164135:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00427.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2010-12-06 18:55 ` [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-12-07 13:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-07 13:15 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-07 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-07 13:13:45 UTC ---
Mine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2010-12-06 18:55 ` [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2010-12-07 13:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-07 13:15 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-07 13:29 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-07 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-07 13:14:51 UTC ---
Simple testcase (to be run with -O -fipa-sra):
struct A
{
int *p;
A() {p = (int *) -1;}
~A() {if (p && p != (int *) -1) *p = 0;}
};
struct B
{
A a;
char data[23];
B() : a() {data[0] = 0;}
};
extern A ga;
extern int *gi;
extern void *gz;
extern B *gb;
static int * __attribute__ ((noinline)) foo (B *b, void *z)
{
__builtin_memcpy (gz, z, 28);
ga = b->a;
return b->a.p;
}
int *bar (B *b, void *z)
{
gb = b;
return foo (b, z);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-07 13:15 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-07 13:29 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-09 13:28 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-07 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-07 13:28:58 UTC ---
ehm, sorry, wrong bug, this is a test case for PR 46734. Of course, I will
have a look at this one soon too, so it can stay assigned to me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-07 13:29 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-09 13:28 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-16 17:55 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-09 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-09 13:28:32 UTC ---
I could not reproduce the ICE with the ouin.cc source but I did with
a.cc.
So far I have no clue whatsoever how IPA-SRA comes into this (but it
is true that switching it off makes the ICE go away) or how the
MEM_REF patch makes anything any different (the IPA-SRA modification
that seems to trigger this only removes a parameter, it does not build
any memory references).
Nevertheless, by adding verify_cgraph() calls all over the place, I
figured out that the verification becomes unhappy after the following
call in expand_call_inline.
fn = cgraph_node (fn)->decl;
cgraph_node creates a cgraph node if it does not find one so I guess
that is a part of the problem.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-09 13:28 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-16 17:55 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-03 17:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-16 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-16 17:55:34 UTC ---
Hm, somehow I must have made a mistake when looking into this last
week but it seems that my dynamic type change detection patches fix
this problem too. The last version of them is at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01213.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-16 17:55 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-03 17:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-03 20:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-03 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-03 17:40:57 UTC ---
The aforementioned patch did not do type comparisons correctly and so
only hid the problem. I have already committed a subsequent patch
that addresses this (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01781.html)
and the issue resurfaced. I'll go on looking into it tomorrow or on
Wednesday.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-03 17:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-03 20:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-07 13:26 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-03 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-03 20:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-07 13:26 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-07 17:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-07 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-07 13:04:53 UTC ---
For the record, my current hypothesis is that in verify_cgraph_node,
in condition
else if (!e->callee->global.inlined_to
&& decl
&& cgraph_get_node (decl)
&& (e->callee->former_clone_of
!= cgraph_get_node (decl)->decl)
&& !clone_of_p (cgraph_node (decl),
e->callee))
the (e->callee->former_clone_of != cgraph_get_node (decl)->decl) is
insufficient in the sense that it should be accompanied with
&& (!e->callee->former_clone_of
|| (e->callee->former_clone_of
!= cgraph_get_node (decl)->former_clone_of))
Basically what happens that cgraph_node (decl) and e->callee have the
same former_clone_of one is not clone of each other. I am now about
to investigate how exactly this appears in the IL to be sure it can
actually happen legitimately.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-07 13:26 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-07 17:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-07 18:21 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-07 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-07 16:57:45 UTC ---
Please disregard the previous comment, I thought that was the case
because of a typo.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-07 17:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-07 18:21 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2011-01-07 21:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2011-01-07 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2011-01-07 18:13:33 UTC ---
> Basically what happens that cgraph_node (decl) and e->callee have the
> same former_clone_of one is not clone of each other. I am now about
> to investigate how exactly this appears in the IL to be sure it can
> actually happen legitimately.
Hmm, how this happens? The call statement should not point to clones
since it should stay intact from early optimization.
Honza
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-07 18:21 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2011-01-07 21:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-08 0:23 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-07 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-07 21:01:53 UTC ---
It does not reproduce for me, perhaps it was fixed by the recursive inliner
fix?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-07 21:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-08 0:23 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2011-01-08 0:35 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org @ 2011-01-08 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-01-07 23:47:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> It does not reproduce for me, perhaps it was fixed by the recursive inliner
> fix?
Did you try with a.cc? ouin.cc hasn't reproduced for a while. I just checked
after your latest commit (168587) and still got the error.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-08 0:23 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
@ 2011-01-08 0:35 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-08 2:21 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-08 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-08 00:23:28 UTC ---
I tested only the reduced testcase, but it still seems to work for me
jh@gcc10:~/trunk/build/gcc$ ./xgcc -B ./ -O2 a.cc -S -frounding-math
a.cc:68:19: warning: inline function 'bool CGAL::possibly(bool)' used but never
defined [enabled by default]
a.cc:345:39: warning: inline function 'bool
CGAL::internal::may_have_common_factor(const CGAL::Polynomial<NT>&, const
CGAL::Polynomial<NT>&) [with NT =
CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> >]' used but never defined
[enabled by default]
a.cc:345:39: warning: inline function 'bool
CGAL::internal::may_have_common_factor(const CGAL::Polynomial<NT>&, const
CGAL::Polynomial<NT>&) [with NT = CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt>]' used but
never defined [enabled by default]
a.cc:345:39: warning: inline function 'bool
CGAL::internal::may_have_common_factor(const CGAL::Polynomial<NT>&, const
CGAL::Polynomial<NT>&) [with NT = CORE::BigInt]' used but never defined
[enabled by default]
jh@gcc10:~/trunk/build/gcc$ grep CHECKING auto-host.h
#define ENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING 1
#define ENABLE_CHECKING 1
/* #undef ENABLE_DF_CHECKING */
/* #undef ENABLE_FOLD_CHECKING */
#define ENABLE_GC_CHECKING 1
#define ENABLE_GIMPLE_CHECKING 1
/* #undef ENABLE_RTL_CHECKING */
#define ENABLE_RTL_FLAG_CHECKING 1
#define ENABLE_RUNTIME_CHECKING 1
#define ENABLE_TREE_CHECKING 1
#define ENABLE_TYPES_CHECKING 1
/* #undef ENABLE_VALGRIND_CHECKING */
well, hopefully Martin has better luck reproducing this...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-08 0:35 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-08 2:21 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-08 4:17 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-08 2:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-08 00:24:34 UTC ---
huh, -O2 instead of -O3. It reproduces for me now. Sorry for noise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-08 2:21 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-08 4:17 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-10 21:02 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-08 4:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-08 00:35:03 UTC ---
OK, both decl and e->callee->former_clone_of points to decls that are not
clones.
(gdb) p debug_tree (decl->decl_with_vis.assembler_name)
<identifier_node 0x7ffff76e7420
_ZN4CGAL10PolynomialINS0_INS0_IN4CORE6BigIntEEEEEEC1IS4_EERKT_ bindings <(nil)>
local bindings <(nil)>>
$14 = void
(gdb) p debug_tree (e->callee->former_clone_of->decl_with_vis.assembler_name)
<identifier_node 0x7ffff76e73c8
_ZN4CGAL10PolynomialINS0_INS0_IN4CORE6BigIntEEEEEEC2IS4_EERKT_ bindings <(nil)>
local bindings <(nil)>>
$15 = void
(gdb)
[2]+ Stopped gdb --args ./cc1plus -quiet -v -iprefix
/home/jh/trunk/build/gcc/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/ -isystem
./include -isystem ./include-fixed -D_GNU_SOURCE a.cc -quiet -dumpbase a.cc
-mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -auxbase a -O3 -version -frounding-math -o a.s
jh@gcc10:~/trunk/build/gcc$ c++filt
_ZN4CGAL10PolynomialINS0_INS0_IN4CORE6BigIntEEEEEEC1IS4_EERKT_
CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> >
>::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> >
>(CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> > const&)
_ZN4CGAL10PolynomialINS0_INS0_IN4CORE6BigIntEEEEEEC2IS4_EERKT_
CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> >
>::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> >
>(CGAL::Polynomial<CGAL::Polynomial<CORE::BigInt> > const&)
it seems to me that only way this can happen is devirtualizing choosing one
variant at IPA mode while other variant in intra-procedural mode during
inlining.
I guess at least one solution should be buggy?
So it is really Martin's ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-08 4:17 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-10 21:02 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-11 13:37 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-10 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-10 20:34:14 UTC ---
The problem seems to be a different one. During IPA decision making
we decide to clone a function and the call graph node of the original
one is then removed as unreachable an unnecessary. However, its
declaration stays in the IL until the transformation phase where
expand_call_inline calls cgraph_node() on it which creates a new,
seemingly entirely separate call graph node. This is then what the
verifier gets for the decl, cannot find any relation between what the
edge points to and the new node and errors out.
We cannot simply replace the call to cgraph_node with cgraph_get_node
and bail out if it returns NULL because the call is supposed to be
inlined and this is then asserted later. The information about the
call just happens to be stored in the call graph edge and the fndecl
in the gimple statement is not necessarily relevant at all. So the
fix which I am testing at the moment just extracts the target
declaration from the call graph, bypassing whatever is in the
statement.
I will submit this patch tomorrow if it passes bootstrap and testing.
2011-01-10 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR middle-end/46823
* tree-inline.c (expand_call_inline): Get fndecl from call graph edge.
Index: icln/gcc/tree-inline.c
===================================================================
--- icln.orig/gcc/tree-inline.c
+++ icln/gcc/tree-inline.c
@@ -3783,14 +3783,19 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimp
if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_CALL)
goto egress;
+ /* Objective C and fortran still calls tree_rest_of_compilation directly.
+ Kill this check once this is fixed. */
+ if (!id->dst_node->analyzed)
+ goto egress;
+
+ cg_edge = cgraph_edge (id->dst_node, stmt);
+ gcc_checking_assert (cg_edge);
/* First, see if we can figure out what function is being called.
If we cannot, then there is no hope of inlining the function. */
- fn = gimple_call_fndecl (stmt);
- if (!fn)
+ if (cg_edge->indirect_unknown_callee)
goto egress;
-
- /* Turn forward declarations into real ones. */
- fn = cgraph_node (fn)->decl;
+ fn = cg_edge->callee->decl;
+ gcc_checking_assert (fn);
/* If FN is a declaration of a function in a nested scope that was
globally declared inline, we don't set its DECL_INITIAL.
@@ -3804,13 +3809,6 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimp
&& gimple_has_body_p (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (fn)))
fn = DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (fn);
- /* Objective C and fortran still calls tree_rest_of_compilation directly.
- Kill this check once this is fixed. */
- if (!id->dst_node->analyzed)
- goto egress;
-
- cg_edge = cgraph_edge (id->dst_node, stmt);
-
/* First check that inlining isn't simply forbidden in this case. */
if (inline_forbidden_into_p (cg_edge->caller->decl, cg_edge->callee->decl))
goto egress;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-10 21:02 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-11 13:37 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-12 14:01 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-11 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-11 13:29:58 UTC ---
I believed that we are supposed to update the statement first and only then try
to inline it. Otherwise we would get into problem with inliner not skipping the
args.
Anyway lookup based on call statement is good idea, but we need to resolve the
problem above.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-11 13:37 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-12 14:01 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-13 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-12 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-12 13:50:11 UTC ---
You're right, however in fact all redirections and updates should be
taking place already. Either in inline_transform() for calls that are
in the function from the beginning of inlining or later when new ones
are added in copy_bb().
So I was looking for why this one did not and figured out that they
are original calls, cgraph_redirect_edge_call_stmt_to_callee() is called
on their edges but it returns immediately because of this condition:
cgraph_get_node (decl) == cgraph_get_node (e->callee->decl)
It is satisfied because the declaration in the IL is an alias, the
function returns and the alias decl stays in the IL. But e->callee is
not the node that the alias cgraph_node aliases, it is another inline
clone instead. And the aliased node is also scheduled to be inlined.
After it is inlined, the node is removed together with its alias nodes
and from that point on there is no cgraph_node for the alias
declaration and so when it is stumbled on another time, cgraph_node()
function creates a new one and the verifier explodes.
I therefore propose to remove the quoted condition from
cgraph_redirect_edge_call_stmt_to_callee(). It was originally added
by Jakub in his fix for PR 42508 with a comment (#4) saying:
"The cgraphunit.c hunk is only somewhat related, is not necessary to
fix this, I've just noticed that the function was still modifying
GIMPLE_CALL decl unnecessarily (and confusingly), when e->callee is an
inline clone of some cgraph node with same_body aliases and
GIMPLE_CALL calls the same_body alias."
Nevertheless, my patch in comment #16 is also OK (and would save a bit
of unnecessary work) because the call statement is not updated only if
it is not necessary because still the same old function is being
called, just through an alias of what is now an inline clone.
So Honza, what do you prefer?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-12 14:01 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-13 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-13 12:28 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-13 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-13 10:35:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> The problem seems to be a different one. During IPA decision making
> we decide to clone a function and the call graph node of the original
> one is then removed as unreachable an unnecessary. However, its
> declaration stays in the IL until the transformation phase where
> expand_call_inline calls cgraph_node() on it which creates a new,
> seemingly entirely separate call graph node. This is then what the
> verifier gets for the decl, cannot find any relation between what the
> edge points to and the new node and errors out.
>
> We cannot simply replace the call to cgraph_node with cgraph_get_node
> and bail out if it returns NULL because the call is supposed to be
> inlined and this is then asserted later. The information about the
> call just happens to be stored in the call graph edge and the fndecl
> in the gimple statement is not necessarily relevant at all. So the
> fix which I am testing at the moment just extracts the target
> declaration from the call graph, bypassing whatever is in the
> statement.
>
> I will submit this patch tomorrow if it passes bootstrap and testing.
>
>
> 2011-01-10 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
>
> PR middle-end/46823
> * tree-inline.c (expand_call_inline): Get fndecl from call graph edge.
>
> Index: icln/gcc/tree-inline.c
> ===================================================================
> --- icln.orig/gcc/tree-inline.c
> +++ icln/gcc/tree-inline.c
> @@ -3783,14 +3783,19 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimp
> if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_CALL)
> goto egress;
>
> + /* Objective C and fortran still calls tree_rest_of_compilation directly.
> + Kill this check once this is fixed. */
> + if (!id->dst_node->analyzed)
> + goto egress;
> +
> + cg_edge = cgraph_edge (id->dst_node, stmt);
> + gcc_checking_assert (cg_edge);
> /* First, see if we can figure out what function is being called.
> If we cannot, then there is no hope of inlining the function. */
> - fn = gimple_call_fndecl (stmt);
> - if (!fn)
> + if (cg_edge->indirect_unknown_callee)
> goto egress;
> -
> - /* Turn forward declarations into real ones. */
> - fn = cgraph_node (fn)->decl;
> + fn = cg_edge->callee->decl;
> + gcc_checking_assert (fn);
>
> /* If FN is a declaration of a function in a nested scope that was
> globally declared inline, we don't set its DECL_INITIAL.
> @@ -3804,13 +3809,6 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimp
> && gimple_has_body_p (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (fn)))
> fn = DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (fn);
>
> - /* Objective C and fortran still calls tree_rest_of_compilation directly.
> - Kill this check once this is fixed. */
> - if (!id->dst_node->analyzed)
> - goto egress;
> -
> - cg_edge = cgraph_edge (id->dst_node, stmt);
> -
> /* First check that inlining isn't simply forbidden in this case. */
> if (inline_forbidden_into_p (cg_edge->caller->decl, cg_edge->callee->decl))
> goto egress;
Err - I'm not sure what this
/* Turn forward declarations into real ones. */
fn = cgraph_node (fn)->decl;
is about at all. At least the comment doesn't make any sense to me.
But yes, the above makes sense to me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-13 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-13 12:28 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-13 16:57 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-13 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-13 11:00:52 UTC ---
Based on Honza's comment #17 I proposed a different patch, making sure
we update the statement as expected, like I described in comment #18
and I have already posted it to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00789.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-13 12:28 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-13 16:57 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2011-01-14 12:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-14 12:40 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2011-01-13 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2011-01-13 16:49:42 UTC ---
> Err - I'm not sure what this
>
> /* Turn forward declarations into real ones. */
> fn = cgraph_node (fn)->decl;
>
> is about at all. At least the comment doesn't make any sense to me.
It is remainder from the times when we didn't have one decl rule. But these
days it still translates same body alises into the functions.
Actually in my comment in #17, I was not concernerned about edge pointing to
an alias, I was concerned about cgraph_redirect_edge_call_stmt_to_callee
possibly not happening before inlining. This seems all fine.
Direct calls to same body aliases are OK and I agree with Jakub that we should
not redirect them to the actual function just for fun.
So the patch #16 is OK.
Thanks and sorry for confussion above.
Honza
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-13 16:57 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2011-01-14 12:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-14 12:40 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-14 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-14 11:59:10 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 14 11:59:07 2011
New Revision: 168778
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168778
Log:
2011-01-14 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR middle-end/46823
* tree-inline.c (expand_call_inline): Get fndecl from call graph edge.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-inline.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/46823] [4.6 Regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration
2010-12-06 15:22 [Bug other/46823] New: ICE: edge points to wrong declaration marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-14 12:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-14 12:40 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-14 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46823
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-14 12:35:54 UTC ---
Hopefully finally fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread