* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-07-13 13:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-19 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-07-13 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-13 13:36 ` [Bug libmudflap/53952] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-19 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-29 0:41 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-19 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-13 13:36 ` [Bug libmudflap/53952] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-19 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-11-29 0:41 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-29 7:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-11-29 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-11-29
CC| |aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-29 00:41:36 UTC ---
The problem is that SRA replaces a copy of an iterator type to a variable that
was not addressable with a copy of the pointer held in the iterator. To that
end, it takes the address of the iterator. This takes place after mudflap1, so
that the address range for the variable is never registered, but before
mudflap2, that introduces the access checks for addressed variables and marking
them addressable. Oops.
(it's the iterator passed to _M_insert_aux, in the copy of push_back inlined
into main)
This ugly patch fixes it, but I don't really like it. Any other suggestions?
--- a/gcc/tree-mudflap.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-mudflap.c
@@ -933,6 +933,12 @@ mf_xform_derefs_1 (gimple_stmt_iterator *iter, tree *tp,
return;
}
+ /* SRA takes the address of variables that were not addressable.
+ Don't check them. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (addr) == ADDR_EXPR
+ && !TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_OPERAND (addr, 0)))
+ return;
+
mf_build_check_statement_for (base, limit, iter, location, dirflag);
}
/* Transform
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-11-29 0:41 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-11-29 7:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-29 9:26 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-11-29 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-29 07:57:12 UTC ---
I'd say it is the right thing, just should be done at a different spot, instead
of doing it for everything just check it for MEM_REF. I think only MEM_REF can
have ADDR_EXPR of a non-TREE_ADDRESSABLE DECL_P as argument, look e.g. at
mem_ref_refers_to_non_mem_p in expr.c (which checks more than that), or
opf_non_addressable and opf_not_non_addressable handling in
tree-ssa-operands.c.
So, MEM_REF with ADDR_EXPR of a non-TREE_ADDRESSABLE DECL_P IMHO doesn't need
to be instrumented (seems I should modify asan/tsan too).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-11-29 7:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-11-29 9:26 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-12-06 21:27 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2012-11-29 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-11-29 09:26:31 UTC ---
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
>
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-29 07:57:12 UTC ---
> I'd say it is the right thing, just should be done at a different spot, instead
> of doing it for everything just check it for MEM_REF. I think only MEM_REF can
> have ADDR_EXPR of a non-TREE_ADDRESSABLE DECL_P as argument, look e.g. at
> mem_ref_refers_to_non_mem_p in expr.c (which checks more than that), or
> opf_non_addressable and opf_not_non_addressable handling in
> tree-ssa-operands.c.
> So, MEM_REF with ADDR_EXPR of a non-TREE_ADDRESSABLE DECL_P IMHO doesn't need
> to be instrumented (seems I should modify asan/tsan too).
Yes, that's true. Only MEM_REF and TARGET_MEM_REF can have ADDR_EXRPs
of sth non-addressable. And yes, no instrumentation necessary.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-11-29 9:26 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2012-12-06 21:27 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 10:25 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 10:30 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-12-06 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-06 21:26:47 UTC ---
Mine. Updated patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00371.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-12-06 21:27 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-12-15 10:25 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 10:30 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-12-15 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-15 10:25:24 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Dec 15 10:25:15 2012
New Revision: 194519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194519
Log:
PR libmudflap/53952
* expr.c (mem_ref_refers_to_non_mem_p): Factor out
implementation into...
(addr_expr_of_non_mem_decl_p_1): ... this new function.
(addr_expr_of_non_mem_decl_p): New.
* tree.h (addr_expr_of_non_mem_decl_p): Declare.
* tree-mudflap.c (mf_xform_derefs_1): Don't change MEM_REFs
and TARGET_MEM_REFs that have an ADDR_EXPR of a non-mem DECL
as base operand.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/expr.c
trunk/gcc/tree-mudflap.c
trunk/gcc/tree.h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libmudflap/53952] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test
2012-07-13 13:35 [Bug libmudflap/53952] New: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx ( -O[123]) execution test rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-12-15 10:25 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-12-15 10:30 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-12-15 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-15 10:30:04 UTC ---
Fixed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread