* [Bug c++/61825] [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-07-17 12:23 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-17 23:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-17 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-17 12:23 ` [Bug c++/61825] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-07-17 23:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-24 15:24 ` [Bug c++/61825] [5 " danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-17 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11, |i386-pc-solaris2.11,
|sparc-sun-solaris2.11, |sparc-sun-solaris2.11,
|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,
| |cris-elf
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-07-17
CC| |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
cris-elf too, appearing in the svn revision interval (212498:212499].
I think I noticed some traffic and perhaps a patch go by but maybe that
stalled; it's still there at r212759.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-17 12:23 ` [Bug c++/61825] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-17 23:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-08-24 15:24 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-25 9:45 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-08-24 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Also seen on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-08-24 15:24 ` [Bug c++/61825] [5 " danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-08-25 9:45 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-26 9:41 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: amker at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-08-25 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also on aarch64/arm, both linux and elf tool-chains.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-08-25 9:45 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-08-26 9:41 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2014-09-08 14:42 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-08-26 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Also seen on *86*-*-*. From
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2014-07/msg00218.html the test has
started to fail at revision r212499.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-08-26 9:41 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2014-09-08 14:42 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2014-09-09 1:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-09-08 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
Honza,
you meant to prepare a patch in July already
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00985.html
but nothing has happened since. Could you please get to this soon?
This regression is causing testsuite noise for two months now.
Thanks.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-08 14:42 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2014-09-09 1:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2014-09-19 22:49 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2014-09-09 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
Hi,
sorry for the delay, the problem is that I do not feel good about putting back
the old code from fold-const, since it simply does not make sense. I need to
dive into the C++ standard what it says about this particular case and how that
corelate with our weak and visibility attributes. I will try to find time for
that this week.
Honza
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-09 1:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2014-09-19 22:49 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2014-09-19 23:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2014-09-19 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
Hi,
this patch implements necessary bits to record what symbols was declared
nonzero and refuse visibility changes that would change the difference
(i.e. turn it into alias, weakref or weak). Possibly we will want to check
more but those are ones I can think of.
Index: c-family/c-common.c
===================================================================
--- c-family/c-common.c (revision 215401)
+++ c-family/c-common.c (working copy)
@@ -7694,6 +7694,15 @@ handle_alias_ifunc_attribute (bool is_al
{
tree decl = *node;
+ struct symtab_node *n = symtab_node::get (decl);
+ if (n && n->refuse_visibility_changes)
+ {
+ if (is_alias)
+ error ("%+D declared alias after being used", decl);
+ else
+ error ("%+D declared ifunc after being used", decl);
+ }
+
if (TREE_CODE (decl) != FUNCTION_DECL
&& (!is_alias || TREE_CODE (decl) != VAR_DECL))
{
@@ -7808,6 +7817,10 @@ handle_weakref_attribute (tree *node, tr
return NULL_TREE;
}
+ struct symtab_node *n = symtab_node::get (*node);
+ if (n && n->refuse_visibility_changes)
+ error ("%+D declared weakref after being used", *node);
+
/* The idea here is that `weakref("name")' mutates into `weakref,
alias("name")', and weakref without arguments, in turn,
implicitly adds weak. */
Index: cgraph.h
===================================================================
--- cgraph.h (revision 215401)
+++ cgraph.h (working copy)
@@ -346,6 +346,10 @@ public:
return decl->decl_with_vis.symtab_node;
}
+ /* Try to find a symtab node for declaration DECL and if it does not
+ exist or if it corresponds to an inline clone, create a new one. */
+ static inline symtab_node * get_create (tree node);
+
/* Return the cgraph node that has ASMNAME for its DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME.
Return NULL if there's no such node. */
static symtab_node *get_for_asmname (const_tree asmname);
@@ -394,7 +398,9 @@ public:
unsigned analyzed : 1;
/* Set for write-only variables. */
unsigned writeonly : 1;
-
+ /* Visibility of symbol was used for further optimization; do not
+ permit further changes. */
+ unsigned refuse_visibility_changes : 1;
/*** Visibility and linkage flags. ***/
@@ -2519,4 +2525,12 @@ cgraph_node::mark_force_output (void)
gcc_checking_assert (!global.inlined_to);
}
+inline symtab_node * symtab_node::get_create (tree node)
+{
+ if (TREE_CODE (node) == VAR_DECL)
+ return varpool_node::get_create (node);
+ else
+ return cgraph_node::get_create (node);
+}
+
#endif /* GCC_CGRAPH_H */
Index: fold-const.c
===================================================================
--- fold-const.c (revision 215401)
+++ fold-const.c (working copy)
@@ -15850,7 +15850,7 @@ tree_single_nonzero_warnv_p (tree t, boo
{
struct symtab_node *symbol;
- symbol = symtab_node::get (base);
+ symbol = symtab_node::get_create (base);
if (symbol)
return symbol->nonzero_address ();
else
Index: varasm.c
===================================================================
--- varasm.c (revision 215401)
+++ varasm.c (working copy)
@@ -5230,6 +5230,12 @@ output_constructor (tree exp, unsigned H
static void
mark_weak (tree decl)
{
+ if (DECL_WEAK (decl))
+ return;
+
+ struct symtab_node *n = symtab_node::get (decl);
+ if (n && n->refuse_visibility_changes)
+ error ("%+D declared weak after being used", decl);
DECL_WEAK (decl) = 1;
if (DECL_RTL_SET_P (decl)
Index: symtab.c
===================================================================
--- symtab.c (revision 215401)
+++ symtab.c (working copy)
@@ -1811,9 +1811,9 @@ bool
symtab_node::nonzero_address ()
{
/* Weakrefs may be NULL when their target is not defined. */
- if (this->alias && this->weakref)
+ if (alias && weakref)
{
- if (this->analyzed)
+ if (analyzed)
{
symtab_node *target = ultimate_alias_target ();
@@ -1828,7 +1828,7 @@ symtab_node::nonzero_address ()
could be useful to eliminate the NULL pointer checks in LTO
programs. */
if (target->definition && !DECL_EXTERNAL (target->decl))
- return true;
+ return true;
if (target->resolution != LDPR_UNKNOWN
&& target->resolution != LDPR_UNDEF
&& flag_delete_null_pointer_checks)
@@ -1847,22 +1847,28 @@ symtab_node::nonzero_address ()
Those are handled by later check for definition.
When parsing, beware the cases when WEAK attribute is added later. */
- if (!DECL_WEAK (this->decl)
- && flag_delete_null_pointer_checks
- && symtab->state > PARSING)
- return true;
+ if (!DECL_WEAK (decl)
+ && flag_delete_null_pointer_checks)
+ {
+ refuse_visibility_changes = true;
+ return true;
+ }
/* If target is defined and not extern, we know it will be output and thus
it will bind to non-NULL.
Play safe for flag_delete_null_pointer_checks where weak definition maye
be re-defined by NULL. */
- if (this->definition && !DECL_EXTERNAL (this->decl)
- && (flag_delete_null_pointer_checks || !DECL_WEAK (this->decl)))
- return true;
+ if (definition && !DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)
+ && (flag_delete_null_pointer_checks || !DECL_WEAK (decl)))
+ {
+ if (!DECL_WEAK (decl))
+ refuse_visibility_changes = true;
+ return true;
+ }
/* As the last resort, check the resolution info. */
- if (this->resolution != LDPR_UNKNOWN
- && this->resolution != LDPR_UNDEF
+ if (resolution != LDPR_UNKNOWN
+ && resolution != LDPR_UNDEF
&& flag_delete_null_pointer_checks)
return true;
return false;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-19 22:49 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2014-09-19 23:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-21 23:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-22 19:53 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-19 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 19 23:56:52 2014
New Revision: 215409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61825
* c-family/c-common.c (handle_alias_ifunc_attribute): Check
that visibility change is possible
(handle_weakref_attribute): Likewise.
* cgraph.h (symtab_node): Add method get_create and
field refuse_visibility_changes.
(symtab_node::get_create): New method.
* fold-const.c (tree_single_nonzero_warnv_p): Use get_create.
* varasm.c (mark_weak): Verify that visibility change is
possible.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/nonzero-1.c: Require error to be output.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
trunk/gcc/cgraph.h
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
trunk/gcc/symtab.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/nonzero-1.c
trunk/gcc/varasm.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-19 23:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-09-21 23:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-22 19:53 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-21 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Seems to be fixed, but I'm leaving the closing step to the reporter (Rainer).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/61825] [5 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
2014-07-17 12:23 [Bug c++/61825] New: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-21 23:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-09-22 19:53 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-22 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread