[Bug lto/61123] With LTO, -fno-short-enums is ignored, resulting in ABI mis-matching in linking.

["Hale.Wang at arm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8", Size: 5905 bytes --]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123

--- Comment #2 from Hale Wang <Hale.Wang at arm dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> All ABI changing options should be also enabled for LTO and they also deserve
> handling in lto-opts.c (always stream, not only if explicitely set) and
> lto-wrapper.c (diagnose mismatches and force a setting for the link stage).
> 
> At least enabling them for LTO is minimally required, like you suggest.


Hi Richard,

I was dealing with the fno-short-enum bug that LTO ignore the options of
fshort-enum and fshort-wchar(fshort-wchar is similar with fshort-enum). I tried
to fix this bug by adding these options to LTO group. And this solution works.

Right now, I am trying to add some test cases to report some error message for
these cases in the previous gcc versions. And these cases will be passed after
I add these options to LTO group.

For the option of fshort-enum, I catch the Tag_ABI_enum_size from the final
executable. And this test case can work very well now.

But for  the option of fshort-wchar, if I compile the source files without
"-flto" option, I can catch the Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t from the final executable.
If I add the "-flto" option to the compile command, the Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t is
totally disappeared in the final executable.

So I think this is another bug which means the final executable file (or the
ABI) is different if we add "-flto" or not. 

I generated a minimal example.I have two source files:

wchar_0.c:
         #include <stddef.h>                
         wchar_t         wc0[]=L”abc”;
         const wchar_t   wc1[]=L”abc”; 

wchar_1.c:
         #include <stddef.h>                
         wchar_t               b0[]={ L”abc” };
         const wchar_t   b1[]={ L”abc” }; 

Firstly, I compile these files without “-flto”:

$ arm-none-eabi-gcc  -fshort-wchar  wchar_0.c  wchar_1.c  -Wl,-Ur  -o 
without_flto.o  -nostdlib  -Os
$ arm-none-eabi-readelf  -A  without_flto.o

Attribute Section: aeabi
File Attributes
  Tag_CPU_name: "ARM7TDMI"
  Tag_CPU_arch: v4T
  Tag_ARM_ISA_use: Yes
  Tag_THUMB_ISA_use: Thumb-1
  Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t: 2
  Tag_ABI_FP_denormal: Needed
  Tag_ABI_FP_exceptions: Needed
  Tag_ABI_FP_number_model: IEEE 754
  Tag_ABI_align_needed: 8-byte
  Tag_ABI_align_preserved: 8-byte, except leaf SP
  Tag_ABI_enum_size: small
  Tag_ABI_optimization_goals: Aggressive Size


Then I compile these files with –flto:

$ arm-none-eabi-gcc  -fshort-wchar  wchar_0.c  wchar_1.c  -Wl,-Ur  -o 
with_flto.o  -nostdlib  -Os –flto
$ arm-none-eabi-readelf  -A  with_flto.o

Attribute Section: aeabi
File Attributes
  Tag_CPU_name: "ARM7TDMI"
  Tag_CPU_arch: v4T
  Tag_ARM_ISA_use: Yes
  Tag_THUMB_ISA_use: Thumb-1
  Tag_ABI_FP_denormal: Needed
  Tag_ABI_FP_exceptions: Needed
  Tag_ABI_FP_number_model: IEEE 754
  Tag_ABI_align_needed: 8-byte
  Tag_ABI_align_preserved: 8-byte, except leaf SP
  Tag_ABI_enum_size: small
  Tag_ABI_optimization_goals: Aggressive Size

So we can see the Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t attribute is totally disappeared. 

What do you think about this?
>From gcc-bugs-return-452668-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed May 28 07:21:56 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-452668-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20448 invoked by alias); 28 May 2014 07:21:55 -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 20418 invoked by uid 48); 28 May 2014 07:21:51 -0000
From: "Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/61335] New: [4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fbounds-check
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 07:21:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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 attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-61335-4@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: 2014-05/txt/msg02360.txt.bz2
Content-length: 885

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida335

            Bug ID: 61335
           Summary: [4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fbounds-check
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.10.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch

Created attachment 32868
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id2868&actioníit
reduced testcase

The attached testcase is miscompiled with current trunk. A recent regression
caused in the day between good: r210955 and bad: r210994

To reproduce compile and run the attached testcase as :

> gfortran -O2 -fbounds-check cp_units.f90 ; ./a.out
 BUG : XXXfs^-1XXX integer expected
STOP 1

while e.g. '-O2' alone or '-fbound-check -O1' work fine.