public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/60449] Merging function DECLs discards leaf attribute which causes cfg verifier to fail
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:41:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60449-4-g0QSQJpocZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-60449-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60449

Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 32997
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32997&action=edit
RFC patch

After playing around with aliases (of extern symbols) for a while I
decided that any such fix to this problem would be too invasive and
generally terrible.  Therefore, I set out to prepare a patch that
would put the leaf flag into individual gimple call statements and
that would also do what Richi suggested in comment #10, ie. remove
MODIFIED_NORETURN_CALLS by having a noreturn flag in calls too.

I may not get back to this for a while so I'm posting what I've got,
inviting comments on the general direction of the patch, even though
it is not at the submission level yet.  It bootstraps but it
introduces one (yet totally unexamined) asan test failure.  I'm also
worried about the occasional discrepancy between the decl and the call
noreturn flags, it would be nice to make it somehow clearer when to
use what.

I've also started to think that setting both the two new flags lazily
in the cfg cleanup was probably a mistake.  Verifier requires special
treatment when noreturn IS set and when leaf IS NOT set, which means
that the cfg cleanup sometimes must be run even though the cfg has not
actually changed (but a call was re-built) which is weird.
So in the next iteration I'll probably try to set the leaf flag when
building the statement and maintain it from that point on.

But that may not happen until late July.  Meanwhile, almost anyone
bumping into this problem can use the first provisional fix.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-06-24 14:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-06 17:03 [Bug lto/60449] New: " jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-06 17:04 ` [Bug lto/60449] " jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-06 17:42 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-06 17:47 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-07  8:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-07  8:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-07 10:07 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-01 12:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-01 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-01 12:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-22 11:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12  8:09 ` mliska at suse dot cz
2014-06-24 14:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-07-16 13:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-20 16:47 ` wmi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-20 17:10 ` wmi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-30 10:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-25 15:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-60449-4-g0QSQJpocZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).