From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13280 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 13243 invoked by uid 48); 18 Jan 2013 18:03:25 -0000 From: "tmsriram at google dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/55742] [4.8 regression] __attribute__ in class function declaration cause "prototype does not match" errors. Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:03:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tmsriram at google dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg01779.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742 --- Comment #36 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18 18:03:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #32) > Created attachment 29207 [details] > gcc48-pr55742.patch > > This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's start talking > over patches. > > This patch attempts to implement what I understand from Jason's comments, just > with "default" instead of "any", because it is indeed the default target > attribute (whatever you specify on the command line). > > Say on: > void foo (); > void foo () __attribute__((target ("avx"))); > void foo () __attribute__((target ("default"))); > __attribute__((target ("default"))) void foo () > { > } > __attribute__((target ("avx"))) void foo () > { > } > void (*fn) () = foo; > > first we merge the first two decls, because only if target attribute is present > on both, we consider it for multi-versioning, for compatibility with 4.7 and > older. On e.g. > void foo (); > void foo () __attribute__((target ("sse4"))); > void foo () __attribute__((target ("default"))); > void foo () > { > } > we reject the last fn definition, because at that point foo is already known to > be multi-versioned, thus it is required that target attribute is specified for > foo (either "default", or some other). Unfortunately, for this case the error > is reported twice for some reason. > > The #c0 testcase now compiles. > > Now, the issues I discovered with multiversioning, still unfixed by the patch: > 1) the mv*.C testcases should be moved, probably to g++.dg/ext/mv*.C > 2) can you please explain the mess in handle_target_attribute? > /* Do not strip invalid target attributes for targets which support function > multiversioning as the target string is used to determine versioned > functions. */ > else if (! targetm.target_option.valid_attribute_p (*node, name, args, > flags) > && ! targetm.target_option.supports_function_versions ()) > *no_add_attrs = true; > Why do you need that? This was added because previously if I had two declarations of foo like this: void foo (); void foo __target__(("sse4.2"))); int main () { foo (); } void foo () { } __target__(("sse4.2"))); void foo () { } The call to foo in main will be treated like 2 different versions of foo exist. However with -msse4.2 on the command-line, the target attribute will be stripped off the second declaration which makes foo no longer multi-versioned when the call to foo is processed. The call to foo without -msse4.2 is multi-versioned and with -msse4.2 is not. I wanted to avoid this behaviour. Consider complete garbage in target attribute arguments, > which is errored about, but the above for i386/x86_64 keeps the target > attribute around anyway, leading to lots of ICEs everywhere: > Consider e.g.: > __attribute__((target ("default"))) void foo (void) > { > } > __attribute__((target (128))) void foo (void) > { > } > 3) the multiversioning code assumes that target has a single argument, but it > can have more than one. Say for: > __attribute__((target ("avx,popcnt"))) void foo (void) > { > } > __attribute__((target ("popcnt","avx"))) void bar (void) > { > } > the compiler handles those two as equivalent, but with -Dbar=foo > multi-versioning only considers the first string out of that.