* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-04-02 7:47 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-04-02 7:48 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-04-02 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> 2013-04-02 07:47:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 29773
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29773
testcase-1.c
This file contains the bulk of the testcase. The function foo() has to be
defined in a separate file to trigger the bug.
Compile with: mingw32-gcc -mincoming-stack-boundary=2
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 testcase-1.c testcase-2.c -o testcase.exe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-04-02 7:47 ` [Bug target/56807] " achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-04-02 7:48 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-04-02 7:53 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-04-02 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> 2013-04-02 07:48:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 29774
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29774
testcase-2.c
Contains the definition of foo().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-04-02 7:47 ` [Bug target/56807] " achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-04-02 7:48 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-04-02 7:53 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-05-15 11:59 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-04-02 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> 2013-04-02 07:53:08 UTC ---
The __chkstk_ms call comes from allocate_stack_worker_probe_<mode> in i386.md,
which is used in allocate_stack if the CHECK_STACK_LIMIT symbol is defined to a
nonzero value. CHECK_STACK_LIMIT defaults to zero, but it's set to 4000 for
mingw32.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-02 7:53 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-05-15 11:59 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-05 23:45 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-15 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-05-15
CC| |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, this happens for function using eax as input-argument hand using
stack-allocation. btw it isn't specific to chkstk_ms function.
I will take a look
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-15 11:59 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-05 23:45 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-06 6:20 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-05 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yeah, the issue is the use of frame-pointer ... instead we should use here
stack-pointer relative addressing as we are that way realigned stack-pointer
agnostic.
Following patch solves the issue. Could you give it a try?
Index: i386.c
===================================================================
--- i386.c (Revision 205719)
+++ i386.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -10934,18 +10934,21 @@ ix86_expand_prologue (void)
}
m->fs.sp_offset += allocate;
+ /* Use stack_pointer_rtx for relative addressing so that code
+ works for realigned stack, too. */
if (r10_live && eax_live)
{
- t = choose_baseaddr (m->fs.sp_offset - allocate);
+ t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, 0 - allocate);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, R10_REG),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
- t = choose_baseaddr (m->fs.sp_offset - allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD);
+ t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
+ 0 - allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, AX_REG),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
}
else if (eax_live || r10_live)
{
- t = choose_baseaddr (m->fs.sp_offset - allocate);
+ t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, 0 - allocate);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode,
(eax_live ? AX_REG : R10_REG)),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-05 23:45 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-06 6:20 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-12-06 13:42 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-12-06 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> ---
Still broken for me, sorry. Using SVN r205727 with the patch, the assembly now
looks like:
00000000 <_bar>:
0: 55 push %ebp
1: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
3: 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%esp
6: 50 push %eax
7: b8 1c 10 00 00 mov $0x101c,%eax
c: e8 00 00 00 00 call 11 <_bar+0x11>
d: DISP32 ___chkstk_ms
11: 29 c4 sub %eax,%esp
13: 8b 84 24 e4 ef ff ff mov -0x101c(%esp),%eax
so it's using the stack pointer but the offset is in the wrong direction.
Should "0 - allocate" be just "allocate" in the plus_constant() calls?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-06 6:20 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-12-06 13:42 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-06 16:52 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-06 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
duh. Yes, of course the '0 -' is wrong. We want to address backward.
Does the patch with this change fixes your issue?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-06 13:42 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-06 16:52 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-12-10 16:37 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-12-06 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> ---
Yes, by replacing "0 - allocate" with "allocate" it seems to work fine. Sorry
for not trying it out myself earlier.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-06 16:52 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-12-10 16:37 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-10 16:40 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-10 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Dec 10 16:36:53 2013
New Revision: 205860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205860&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56807
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_prologue): Address saved
registers stack-relative, not via frame-pointer.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-10 16:37 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-10 16:40 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-10 16:52 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-10 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Dec 10 16:40:36 2013
New Revision: 205861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56807
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_prologue): Address saved
registers stack-relative, not via frame-pointer.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-10 16:40 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-10 16:52 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-10 16:53 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-10 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Dec 10 16:52:23 2013
New Revision: 205864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56807
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_prologue): Address saved
registers stack-relative, not via frame-pointer.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-10 16:52 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-10 16:53 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-11 6:09 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-10 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on all active branches
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-10 16:53 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-11 6:09 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-12-11 8:34 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-12-11 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> ---
FYI, the 4.7 branch no longer builds for me:
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function 'ix86_expand_prologue':
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:10434:4: warning: passing argument 1 of
'plus_constant' makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
In file included from /tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:26:0:
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/rtl.h:1646:12: note: expected 'rtx' but argument is of type
'int'
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:10434:4: warning: passing argument 2 of
'plus_constant' makes integer from pointer without a cast [enabled by default]
In file included from /tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:26:0:
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/rtl.h:1646:12: note: expected 'long int' but argument is of
type 'rtx'
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:10434:4: error: too many arguments to
function 'plus_constant'
In file included from /tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:26:0:
/tmp/gcc47-svn/gcc/rtl.h:1646:12: note: declared here
plus a couple more sets of the same errors for the other plus_constant() calls.
If I remove the "Pmode" argument, the resulting compiler seems to do the right
thing and the test case passes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 6:09 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-12-11 8:34 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-11 8:51 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-11 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Sorry for that on the 4.7 branch. plus_constant function takes one argument
less on 4.7 branch. Following patch fixes the issue for me:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
--- config/i386/i386.c (Revision 205882)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -10431,15 +10431,15 @@ ix86_expand_prologue (void)
if (r10_live && eax_live)
{
- t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, allocate);
+ t = plus_constant (stack_pointer_rtx, allocate);
emit_move_insn (r10, gen_frame_mem (Pmode, t));
- t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
+ t = plus_constant (stack_pointer_rtx,
allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD);
emit_move_insn (eax, gen_frame_mem (Pmode, t));
}
else if (eax_live || r10_live)
{
- t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, allocate);
+ t = plus_constant (stack_pointer_rtx, allocate);
emit_move_insn ((eax_live ? eax : r10), gen_frame_mem (Pmode, t));
}
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 8:34 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-11 8:51 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-11 14:06 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-11 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Sorry for that on the 4.7 branch. plus_constant function takes one argument
> less on 4.7 branch. Following patch fixes the issue for me:
Please test and install as obvious ASAP, all the x86/x86-64 ports are broken.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 8:51 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-11 14:06 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-11 15:53 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-11 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Dec 11 14:05:56 2013
New Revision: 205895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Committed as obvious fix.
PR target/56807
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_prologue): plus_constant
takes no mode-argument.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 14:06 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-12-11 15:53 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
2013-12-16 19:05 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
` (8 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: achurch+gcc at achurch dot org @ 2013-12-11 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> ---
The 4.7 branch works fine for me now. Thanks for the fixes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-11 15:53 ` achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
@ 2013-12-16 19:05 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
2013-12-16 19:20 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: BugMaster at narod dot ru @ 2013-12-16 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
Anton Mitrofanov <BugMaster at narod dot ru> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |BugMaster at narod dot ru
--- Comment #18 from Anton Mitrofanov <BugMaster at narod dot ru> ---
This patch is ok for mingw32 target but may produce incorrect code for x86_64
linux target in case of saving/restoring both rax and r10. In that case during
restoring of rax register (in "if (r10_live && eax_live)" path of
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c?r1=205860&r2=205859&pathrev=205860)
we will make move from incorrect address [rsp + allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD]
while the saved value will be at address [rsp + allocate + UNITS_PER_WORD].
Here is possible code that can be generated (by looking at current gcc source
code):
// suppose rsp == 1000 here
push rax // rsp == 992 ; [992] == rax
push r10 // rsp == 984 ; [984] == r10
mov rax, 400 // where 400 is allocate value
call allocate_stack
sub rsp, rax // rax == 400 so rsp == 584
mov r10, [rsp + 400] // 584 + 400 == 984 ; r10 = [984]
mov rax, [rsp + 400 - 8] // 584 + 400 - 8 == 976 ; rax = [976] <- WRONG
Instead the last instruction should be
mov rax, [rsp + 400 + 8] // 584 + 400 + 8 == 992 ; rax = [992]
Sorry, I can't write test case to trigger this code path so I will leave this
comment here and not create new bug report (if you want you can move it to new
bug report).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 19:05 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
@ 2013-12-16 19:20 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2013-12-16 19:31 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
` (6 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2013-12-16 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Anton Mitrofanov from comment #18)
> This patch is ok for mingw32 target but may produce incorrect code for
> x86_64 linux target in case of saving/restoring both rax and r10. In that
> case during restoring of rax register (in "if (r10_live && eax_live)" path
> of
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.
> c?r1=205860&r2=205859&pathrev=205860) we will make move from incorrect
> address [rsp + allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD] while the saved value will be at
> address [rsp + allocate + UNITS_PER_WORD]. Here is possible code that can be
> generated (by looking at current gcc source code):
>
> // suppose rsp == 1000 here
> push rax // rsp == 992 ; [992] == rax
> push r10 // rsp == 984 ; [984] == r10
> mov rax, 400 // where 400 is allocate value
> call allocate_stack
> sub rsp, rax // rax == 400 so rsp == 584
> mov r10, [rsp + 400] // 584 + 400 == 984 ; r10 = [984]
> mov rax, [rsp + 400 - 8] // 584 + 400 - 8 == 976 ; rax = [976] <- WRONG
>
> Instead the last instruction should be
>
> mov rax, [rsp + 400 + 8] // 584 + 400 + 8 == 992 ; rax = [992]
>
There are
if (eax_live)
{
insn = emit_insn (gen_push (eax));
allocate -= UNITS_PER_WORD;
...
if (r10_live)
{
r10 = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, R10_REG);
insn = emit_insn (gen_push (r10));
allocate -= UNITS_PER_WORD;
...
if (r10_live && eax_live)
{
t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, allocate);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, R10_REG),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, AX_REG),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
}
They look OK to me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 19:20 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2013-12-16 19:31 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
2013-12-16 19:32 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
` (5 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: BugMaster at narod dot ru @ 2013-12-16 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #20 from Anton Mitrofanov <BugMaster at narod dot ru> ---
I was talking about:
if (r10_live && eax_live)
{
t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx, allocate);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, R10_REG),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD);
emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, AX_REG),
gen_frame_mem (word_mode, t));
}
And especially:
t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
allocate - UNITS_PER_WORD);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 19:31 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
@ 2013-12-16 19:32 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
2013-12-16 21:33 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: BugMaster at narod dot ru @ 2013-12-16 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #21 from Anton Mitrofanov <BugMaster at narod dot ru> ---
It should be:
t = plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
allocate + UNITS_PER_WORD);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 19:32 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
@ 2013-12-16 21:33 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2013-12-16 22:04 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
` (3 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2013-12-16 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
That piece of code is only trigged by -mstack-arg-probe, which is
specific to Windows:
else if (!ix86_target_stack_probe ()
|| frame.stack_pointer_offset < CHECK_STACK_LIMIT)
{
pro_epilogue_adjust_stack (stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx,
GEN_INT (-allocate), -1,
m->fs.cfa_reg == stack_pointer_rtx);
}
else
{
rtx eax = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, AX_REG);
rtx r10 = NULL;
rtx (*adjust_stack_insn)(rtx, rtx, rtx);
const bool sp_is_cfa_reg = (m->fs.cfa_reg == stack_pointer_rtx);
bool eax_live = false;
bool r10_live = false;
if (TARGET_64BIT)
r10_live = (DECL_STATIC_CHAIN (current_function_decl) != 0);
if (!TARGET_64BIT_MS_ABI)
eax_live = ix86_eax_live_at_start_p ();
Is it possible to write a test with eax_live == true and r10_live == true?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 21:33 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2013-12-16 22:04 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
2013-12-16 22:56 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: BugMaster at narod dot ru @ 2013-12-16 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #23 from Anton Mitrofanov <BugMaster at narod dot ru> ---
>Is it possible to write a test with eax_live == true and r10_live == true?
I am really dunno. As I said I can't write sample which will trigger it (that
is why it is only comment and not new bug report). But this code path exist so
probably someone suggested that it can be triggered (otherwise what for to
write it instead of some assert)?
>That piece of code is only trigged by -mstack-arg-probe, which is
specific to Windows
Can it really be used only for Windows target? I am not very good with gcc on
other targets so don't know if it have any effect on linux or anything other.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 22:04 ` BugMaster at narod dot ru
@ 2013-12-16 22:56 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-14 9:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-20 14:44 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-12-16 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #24 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Anton Mitrofanov from comment #23)
> >Is it possible to write a test with eax_live == true and r10_live == true?
> I am really dunno. As I said I can't write sample which will trigger it
> (that is why it is only comment and not new bug report). But this code path
> exist so probably someone suggested that it can be triggered (otherwise what
> for to write it instead of some assert)?
>
> >That piece of code is only trigged by -mstack-arg-probe, which is specific to Windows
That isn't true. -mstack-arg-probe is valid for all i386 (x86 and x86_64)
targets.
> Can it really be used only for Windows target? I am not very good with gcc
> on other targets so don't know if it have any effect on linux or anything
> other.
Well, it can be used on other targets too. Nevertheless you need the for this
a implementation of the stack-probing routines (see here libgcc/config/i386
assembly-routine).
The interesting part is that this issue is just a x86_64 issue. It is for sure
no Windows issue, as for Windows targets eax_live and r10_live never can be
both true. The r10_live can just get true for x86_64, but not for x64 Windows,
due drap-register isn't allowed for 64-bit Winodws targets. The eax_live can't
get true for 64-bit (Not quite sure if we need actually this limitation). Only
for 32-bit it might be set.
For x86_64 targets (using amd64 ABI) it might be possible when drap-register is
used together with -mstack-arg-probe (which is by default not supported). So
this case is in general hard to construct, and will be seen in real-live pretty
unlikely.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2013-12-16 22:56 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-02-14 9:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-20 14:44 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-14 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The patch has introduced ICEs on x86-64, see PR target/60193.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread* [Bug target/56807] mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX
2013-04-02 7:45 [Bug target/56807] New: mingw32: Conflict between stack realignment and stack probe destroys function argument in EAX achurch+gcc at achurch dot org
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-14 9:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-02-20 14:44 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-20 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #26 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
ICE was resolved for x86_64.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread