* [Bug c/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-02-15 13:13 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-15 14:19 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-02-15 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> 2013-02-15 13:12:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 29465
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29465
proposed patch
attached is a patch for gcc-4.6.3 that should resolve this issue.
volatile packed struct members are accessed in words if structure
is aligned by 2 and in bytes if structure is aligned by 1.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-15 13:13 ` [Bug c/56341] " bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-02-15 14:19 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
2013-02-15 14:47 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2013-02-15 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2013-02-15 14:19:28 UTC ---
The test case causes alignment exceptions for me on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi,
when compiled with any one of gcc 4.8, 4.7, or 4.6. Was Sandra's patch ever
applied?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug c/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-15 13:13 ` [Bug c/56341] " bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-15 14:19 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
@ 2013-02-15 14:47 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-15 15:26 ` [Bug middle-end/56341] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-02-15 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> 2013-02-15 14:46:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The test case causes alignment exceptions for me on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi,
> when compiled with any one of gcc 4.8, 4.7, or 4.6. Was Sandra's patch ever
> applied?
apparently not. not in 4.6.x not in 4.7.2.
When I used the original patch the assignment in test() was fixed,
but the crash in test1() was still there, because the patch
did not pay attention to the alignment of the structure.
Therefore I added a check for the alignment in both read and
write instructions.
Regards,
Bernd Edlinger.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-15 14:47 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-02-15 15:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-18 11:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-15 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |arm*-*-*
Component|c |middle-end
Version|unknown |4.6.3
Severity|major |normal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-15 15:26 ` [Bug middle-end/56341] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-18 11:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-18 15:31 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-18 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-18 11:20:43 UTC ---
There is now better ways of implementing -fstrict-volatile-bitfields which
I repeatedly told the arm people. Not for 4.6, but for 4.7 and trunk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-18 11:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-18 15:31 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2013-02-18 18:42 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sandra at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-02-18 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sandra at codesourcery dot
| |com
--- Comment #5 from Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com> 2013-02-18 15:30:16 UTC ---
The patch linked from the initial message was rejected. I did not (and still
do not) have the time to rewrite it; if someone else can figure out how to fix
this in a way that's acceptable to the maintainers, that would be great.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-18 15:31 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
@ 2013-02-18 18:42 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-20 1:38 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-02-18 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> 2013-02-18 18:41:55 UTC ---
hhmm...
could some one give an example where packedp would be false but the value
is packed or unaligned?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-18 18:42 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-02-20 1:38 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-02-26 18:25 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-02-20 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #29465|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> 2013-02-20 01:38:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29506
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29506
proposed patch
this patch uses packedp only for the warn_misaligned_bitfield()
but does always use multiple load or stores. So even if the
packedp may be unreliable it will only have influence on the warning text.
reason:
if packedp == false the code will always use a single but mis-aligned
instruction which is known to abort at runtime. So that is always wrong.
note: there are two almost identical formula used for packedp.
packedp as it is used in extract_bit_field (old code):
if (TYPE_PACKED (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0)))
|| (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1)) == FIELD_DECL
&& DECL_PACKED (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1))))
packedp = true;
packedp as it is used in store_field (new code):
if (TREE_CODE(to) == COMPONENT_REF
&& (TYPE_PACKED (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (to, 0)))
|| (TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (to, 1)) == FIELD_DECL
&& DECL_PACKED (TREE_OPERAND (to, 1)))))
packedp = true;
However if we can not trust the second one why should we trust the first one?
Therefore the packedp should not have influence on the code generation at all.
That would only take unnecessary risks.
Well, I think that should resolve your objections... Right?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-20 1:38 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-02-26 18:25 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-03-27 10:37 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-02-26 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #29506|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> 2013-02-26 18:24:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 29546
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29546
proposed patch, cleaned up
in the last version of this patch the packedp parameter had only an
impact on the generated warning.
if packedp==true the warning is:
"multiple accesses to volatile structure member/bitfield
because of packed attribute"
if packedp==false the warning is:
"mis-aligned access used for structure member/bitfield
when a volatile object spans multiple type-sized locations,
the compiler must choose between using a single mis-aligned access to
preserve the volatility, or using multiple aligned accesses to avoid
runtime faults; this code may fail at runtime if the hardware does
not allow this access"
The second warning says in short:
"I am going to generate mis-aligned code, and I know it will fail at runtime."
However this patch is supposed to avoid mis-aligned code, at least for ARM.
Therefore it is only natural that the second warning is no longer needed.
Now I removed all packedp code in extract_bit_field and store_bit_field,
including the second warning. Fortunately that makes the patch much smaller.
I did boot-strap the patched compiler several times, and everything looks good.
TODO: remove translations of the obsolete warnings. (I dont know how to)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-26 18:25 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-03-27 10:37 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-06-03 4:11 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-03-27 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> 2013-03-27 10:36:48 UTC ---
Hello GCC-Maintainers,
what do you think? Should'nt this patch be in the 4.6.4 release?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2013-03-27 10:37 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-06-03 4:11 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2013-06-03 13:01 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sandra at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-06-03 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #10 from Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com> ---
I'm working on a new patch that addresses the first problem, the failure in
test().
I think the second failure is not in test1() at all, and has nothing to do with
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields. Looks to me like problem is that the expression
"&x1->t1" is returning an unaligned pointer due to the packed attribute on
struct test2. It should probably not be allowed to take the address of a
packed struct field, at least on targets that require strict alignment.
Hmmmm, that bug is already filed as PR 41809.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-03 4:11 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
@ 2013-06-03 13:01 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-06-14 3:01 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2013-06-03 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> ---
Created attachment 30248
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30248&action=edit
another example of the alignment faults
Hello Sandra,
good that you continue to work on that bug again.
I agree that there may be two completely different aspects of this bug.
Attached you'll find a new test program that came in my mind when I
looked at PR 41809, the structure s is aligned 2 and packed.
If you make it an array of size 10, each second call of f is given
an odd pointer. But the compiler should know that because of the
aligned(2) attribute.
What is the difference to PR 41809 is this:
1. PR 41809 is not a correct C-program at all, and has never been.
While this attached new test program is correct C program.
previous GCC versions did compile that correctly, current GCC does not even
emit a warning.
2. PR 41809 is not about volatile at all.
However if you remove the "volatile" in the test program(s),
the code is correct and does no longer use unaligned addresses.
On the other hand, "volatile" might mean that the compiler
should try not to optimize the read instructions, for instance in loops.
But of course not to an extent that the generated code is no longer valid.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-03 13:01 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2013-06-14 3:01 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2013-10-07 15:41 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sandra at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-06-14 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #12 from Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com> ---
Patch for the first problem posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00750.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2013-06-14 3:01 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
@ 2013-10-07 15:41 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
2013-10-30 17:08 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sandra at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-10-07 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #13 from Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com> ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately, it seems that fixing bugs with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields has
been blocked by disagreement between global reviewers and target maintainers
who can't agree on whether the C/C++11 memory model should take precedence over
target-specific ABIs by default. :-(
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-07 15:41 ` sandra at codesourcery dot com
@ 2013-10-30 17:08 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-11 16:50 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-30 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-10-30
CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail| |4.7.3, 4.8.0, 4.8.1, 4.9.0
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
well, confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-30 17:08 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-11 16:50 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-11 16:59 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-11 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #15 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
PR middle-end/23623
PR middle-end/48784
PR middle-end/56341
PR middle-end/56997
gcc/
* expmed.c (strict_volatile_bitfield_p): New function.
(store_bit_field_1): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here.
(store_bit_field): Handle strict volatile bitfields here instead.
(store_fixed_bit_field): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here.
(extract_bit_field_1): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here.
(extract_bit_field): Handle strict volatile bitfields here instead.
(extract_fixed_bit_field): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here. Simplify surrounding code to resemble that in
store_fixed_bit_field.
* doc/invoke.texi (Code Gen Options): Update
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields description.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr23623.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr48784-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr48784-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56341-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56341-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56997-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56997-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56997-3.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr23623.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48784-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48784-2.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56341-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56341-2.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56997-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56997-2.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56997-3.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
trunk/gcc/expmed.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 16:50 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-11 16:59 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-07 13:43 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2014-02-27 7:28 ` jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-11 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #16 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
PR middle-end/23623
PR middle-end/48784
PR middle-end/56341
PR middle-end/56997
* expmed.c (strict_volatile_bitfield_p): Add bitregion_start
and bitregion_end parameters. Test for compliance with C++
memory model.
(store_bit_field): Adjust call to strict_volatile_bitfield_p.
Add fallback logic for cases where -fstrict-volatile-bitfields
is supposed to apply, but cannot.
(extract_bit_field): Likewise. Use narrow_bit_field_mem and
extract_fixed_bit_field_1 to do the extraction.
(extract_fixed_bit_field): Revert to previous mode selection algorithm.
Call extract_fixed_bit_field_1 to do the real work.
(extract_fixed_bit_field_1): New function.
testsuite:
* gcc.dg/pr23623.c: Update to test interaction with C++
memory model.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/expmed.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr23623.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 16:59 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-01-07 13:43 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2014-02-27 7:28 ` jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de @ 2014-01-07 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> ---
fixed on trunk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access
2013-02-15 13:09 [Bug c/56341] New: GCC produces unaligned data access bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-07 13:43 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
@ 2014-02-27 7:28 ` jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-27 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #18 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye <joey.ye@arm.com>
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bitfields fixes
2013-09-28 Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
gcc/
* expr.h (extract_bit_field): Remove packedp parameter.
* expmed.c (extract_fixed_bit_field): Remove packedp parameter
from forward declaration.
(store_split_bit_field): Remove packedp arg from calls to
extract_fixed_bit_field.
(extract_bit_field_1): Remove packedp parameter and packedp
argument from recursive calls and calls to extract_fixed_bit_field.
(extract_bit_field): Remove packedp parameter and corresponding
arg to extract_bit_field_1.
(extract_fixed_bit_field): Remove packedp parameter. Remove code
to issue warnings.
(extract_split_bit_field): Remove packedp arg from call to
extract_fixed_bit_field.
* expr.c (emit_group_load_1): Adjust calls to extract_bit_field.
(copy_blkmode_from_reg): Likewise.
(copy_blkmode_to_reg): Likewise.
(read_complex_part): Likewise.
(store_field): Likewise.
(expand_expr_real_1): Likewise.
* calls.c (store_unaligned_arguments_into_pseudos): Adjust call
to extract_bit_field.
* config/tilegx/tilegx.c (tilegx_expand_unaligned_load): Adjust
call to extract_bit_field.
* config/tilepro/tilepro.c (tilepro_expand_unaligned_load): Adjust
call to extract_bit_field.
* doc/invoke.texi (Code Gen Options): Remove mention of warnings
and special packedp behavior from -fstrict-volatile-bitfields
documentation.
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
* expr.c (expand_assignment): Remove dependency on
flag_strict_volatile_bitfields. Always set the memory
access mode.
(expand_expr_real_1): Likewise.
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
PR middle-end/23623
PR middle-end/48784
PR middle-end/56341
PR middle-end/56997
gcc/
* expmed.c (strict_volatile_bitfield_p): New function.
(store_bit_field_1): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here.
(store_bit_field): Handle strict volatile bitfields here instead.
(store_fixed_bit_field): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here.
(extract_bit_field_1): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here.
(extract_bit_field): Handle strict volatile bitfields here instead.
(extract_fixed_bit_field): Don't special-case strict volatile
bitfields here. Simplify surrounding code to resemble that in
store_fixed_bit_field.
* doc/invoke.texi (Code Gen Options): Update
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields description.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr23623.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr48784-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr48784-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56341-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56341-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56997-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56997-2.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr56997-3.c: New test.
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
PR middle-end/23623
PR middle-end/48784
PR middle-end/56341
PR middle-end/56997
* expmed.c (strict_volatile_bitfield_p): Add bitregion_start
and bitregion_end parameters. Test for compliance with C++
memory model.
(store_bit_field): Adjust call to strict_volatile_bitfield_p.
Add fallback logic for cases where -fstrict-volatile-bitfields
is supposed to apply, but cannot.
(extract_bit_field): Likewise. Use narrow_bit_field_mem and
extract_fixed_bit_field_1 to do the extraction.
(extract_fixed_bit_field): Revert to previous mode selection
algorithm.
Call extract_fixed_bit_field_1 to do the real work.
(extract_fixed_bit_field_1): New function.
testsuite:
* gcc.dg/pr23623.c: Update to test interaction with C++
memory model.
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
PR middle-end/59134
* expmed.c (store_bit_field): Use narrow_bit_field_mem and
store_fixed_bit_field_1 for -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
(store_fixed_bit_field): Split up. Call store_fixed_bit_field_1
to do the real work.
(store_fixed_bit_field_1): New function.
(store_split_bit_field): Limit the unit size to the memory mode
size,
to prevent recursion.
testsuite:
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr59134.c: New test.
* gnat.dg/misaligned_volatile.adb: New test.
Added:
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr59134.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr23623.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48784-1.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48784-2.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56341-1.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56341-2.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56997-1.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56997-2.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr56997-3.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/misaligned_volatile.adb
Modified:
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.arm
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/calls.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/config/tilepro/tilepro.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/expmed.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/expr.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/expr.h
branches/ARM/embedded-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.arm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread