[Bug c++/60299] New: [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[Bug c++/60299] New: [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

            Bug ID: 60299
           Summary: [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class
                    has a constructor which is a variadic function
                    template
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: major
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com

I have made a small example (see attachment) which exhibits the problem.

The generated copy constructor of class C calls itself, and then the base
class's constructor - see disassembly (see attachment of gdb session). This
results in an infinite recursion.

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

--- Comment #1 from Martin Lederhilger <m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com> ---
Created attachment 32186
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32186&action=edit
Example which exhibits the probelm

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

--- Comment #2 from Martin Lederhilger <m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com> ---
Created attachment 32187
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32187&action=edit
Command line used to build the example

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

--- Comment #3 from Martin Lederhilger <m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com> ---
Created attachment 32188
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32188&action=edit
GDB session which shows the disassembly of C's copy constructor

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

--- Comment #4 from Martin Lederhilger <m.lederhilger@ds-automotion.com> ---
Interestingly clang-3.4 produces the same result - is my program somehow wrong?

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
The observed behaviour is to be expected, because B's variadic constructors
deduces from the given parameter list a single argument of type C and like
every other function with non-reference arguments this will invoke the
copy-constructor of the corresponding argument type. Bad idea to try something
like this within a copy-constructor ;-)
>From gcc-bugs-return-444472-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Feb 21 12:13:37 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444472-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24910 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2014 12:13:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24870 invoked by uid 48); 21 Feb 2014 12:13:33 -0000
From: "matthijs at stdin dot nl" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/60300] New: [avr] Suboptimal stack pointer manipulation for frame setup
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:13:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: matthijs at stdin dot nl
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
Message-ID: <bug-60300-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg02229.txt.bz2
Content-length: 3505

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`300

            Bug ID: 60300
           Summary: [avr] Suboptimal stack pointer manipulation for frame
                    setup
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: matthijs at stdin dot nl

For setting up the stack frame in the function prologue, gcc chooses between
either directly manipulation the stack pointer with "rcall ." and "push"
instructions, or copying it to the frame pointer, modifying that and copying it
back, depending on which is shorter.

However, when the frame size is 7 or more, gcc picks the frame-pointer
approach, even when the direct manipulation approach would be shorter.

Here's the example (lines with dashes added by me to indicate the
relevant code

$ cat foo.c
#include <stdint.h>

void bar(uint8_t *);

void foo() {
        uint8_t x[SIZE];
        bar(x);
}

$ diff -u <(avr-gcc -DSIZE=6 -c foo.c -o - -S) <(avr-gcc -D SIZE=7 -c foo.c -o
- -S)
--- /dev/fd/63  2014-02-21 13:04:18.531142523 +0100
+++ /dev/fd/62  2014-02-21 13:04:18.535142628 +0100
@@ -10,21 +10,24 @@
 foo:
        push r28
        push r29
-       rcall .
-       rcall .
-       rcall .
        in r28,__SP_L__
        in r29,__SP_H__
+       sbiw r28,7
+       in __tmp_reg__,__SREG__
+       cli
+       out __SP_H__,r29
+       out __SREG__,__tmp_reg__
+       out __SP_L__,r28
 /* prologue: function */
-/* frame size = 6 */
-/* stack size = 8 */
-.L__stack_usage = 8
+/* frame size = 7 */
+/* stack size = 9 */
+.L__stack_usage = 9
        mov r24,r28
        mov r25,r29
        adiw r24,1
        rcall bar
 /* epilogue start */
-       adiw r28,6
+       adiw r28,7
        in __tmp_reg__,__SREG__
        cli
        out __SP_H__,r29

As you can see, for SIZE=7 it switches to a 6-instruction sequence, when a
4-instruction sequence (3x rcall + 1x push) would also suffice.


Relevant code seems to be avr_prologue_setup_frame and avr_out_addto_sp:
 -
https://github.com/mirrors/gcc/blob/c2e306f5efb32b7eed856a1844487cff09aa86ac/gcc/config/avr/avr.c#L1109-L1278
 -
https://github.com/mirrors/gcc/blob/c2e306f5efb32b7eed856a1844487cff09aa86ac/gcc/config/avr/avr.c#L7002-L7014

That code tries both approaches to see which one is smaller, so
presumably it gets the size of either of them wrong and thus makes the
wrong decision.



Note that for the epilogue, the compiler has the turnover point at the expected
5/6 bytes of frame size:

$ diff -u <(avr-gcc -DSIZE=5 -c foo.c -o - -S) <(avr-gcc -D SIZE=6 -c foo.c -o
- -S)
--- /dev/fd/63  2014-02-21 13:05:55.825616219 +0100
+++ /dev/fd/62  2014-02-21 13:05:55.821616121 +0100
@@ -12,23 +12,24 @@
        push r29
        rcall .
        rcall .
-       push __zero_reg__
+       rcall .
        in r28,__SP_L__
        in r29,__SP_H__
 /* prologue: function */
-/* frame size = 5 */
-/* stack size = 7 */
-.L__stack_usage = 7
+/* frame size = 6 */
+/* stack size = 8 */
+.L__stack_usage = 8
        mov r24,r28
        mov r25,r29
        adiw r24,1
        rcall bar
 /* epilogue start */
-       pop __tmp_reg__
-       pop __tmp_reg__
-       pop __tmp_reg__
-       pop __tmp_reg__
-       pop __tmp_reg__
+       adiw r28,6
+       in __tmp_reg__,__SREG__
+       cli
+       out __SP_H__,r29
+       out __SREG__,__tmp_reg__
+       out __SP_L__,r28
        pop r29
        pop r28
        ret

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|major                       |normal

[Bug c++/60299] [C++11] Copy constructor calls itself if base class has a constructor which is a variadic function template

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60299

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, the program is broken and G++ does exactly what it's supposed to.

You probably want:

  template<typename ...Args>
  B(Args&&... params)
  {

  }