[Bug ipa/63580] New: [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[Bug ipa/63580] New: [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

            Bug ID: 63580
           Summary: [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple
                    call
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: ipa
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

trippels@gcc1-power7 status % cat defaults.ii
struct A
{
};
template <class L, class R> A operator%(L, R);
template <class A0, class A1, class A2, class A3>
void make_tuple (A0 &, A1, A2, A3);
A
bar (int p1, char p2, int p3, double p4)
{
  A a;
  make_tuple (p1, p2, p3, p4);
  return "int; char; string; double; " % a;
}
A
foo (int p1, char p2, int p3, double p4)
{
  A b;
  make_tuple (p1, p2, p3, p4);
  return "int; char; string; double; " % b;
}

trippels@gcc1-power7 status % g++ -c -w -O2 -fPIC defaults.ii
defaults.ii: In function ‘A bar(int, char, int, double)’:
defaults.ii:20:1: error: invalid argument to gimple call
 }
 ^
p1
# .MEM_5 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
<retval> = _Z3fooicid.localalias.0 (p1, p2_2(D), p3_3(D), p4_4(D)); [tail call]
defaults.ii:20:1: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
0x109d2c2f verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool)
        ../../gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c:5025
0x10893493 execute_function_todo
        ../../gcc/gcc/passes.c:1755
0x10894137 do_per_function
        ../../gcc/gcc/passes.c:1489
0x10894137 do_per_function
        ../../gcc/gcc/passes.c:1479
0x108942ef execute_todo
        ../../gcc/gcc/passes.c:1812
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
trippels@gcc1-power7 status % g++ -c -fno-ipa-icf -O2 -fPIC defaults.ii
trippels@gcc1-power7 status %
>From gcc-bugs-return-464385-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 17 20:38:58 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-464385-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10385 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2014 20:38:58 -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 10349 invoked by uid 48); 17 Oct 2014 20:38:54 -0000
From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:38:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-63580-4-YTLEXCU4IX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63580-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63580-4@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: 2014-10/txt/msg01406.txt.bz2
Content-length: 298

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc580

Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.0

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-10-20
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
You miss to mark p1 addressable in the alias decl (that is, copy
TREE_ADDRESSABLE).

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

--- Comment #2 from marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> You miss to mark p1 addressable in the alias decl (that is, copy
> TREE_ADDRESSABLE).

As I can see, ICF creates thunk to a localalias of foo.
At which please I should preserve addressable attribute?

Thanks,
Martin

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[mliska at suse dot cz]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz> ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580
>
> Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
>     Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-10-20
>       Ever confirmed|0                           |1
>
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> You miss to mark p1 addressable in the alias decl (that is, copy
> TREE_ADDRESSABLE).
>

Do you mean following change:

@@ -2334,6 +2334,14 @@ cgraph_node::create_wrapper (cgraph_node *target)

      cgraph_edge *e = create_edge (target, NULL, 0, CGRAPH_FREQ_BASE);

+  tree arguments = DECL_ARGUMENTS (decl);
+
+  while (arguments)
+    {
+      TREE_ADDRESSABLE (arguments) = false;
+      arguments = TREE_CHAIN (arguments);
+    }
+
      expand_thunk (false, true);
      e->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p = true;

Thanks,
Martin
>From gcc-bugs-return-464879-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Oct 23 21:51:22 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-464879-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12285 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2014 21:51:22 -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 12261 invoked by uid 48); 23 Oct 2014 21:51:18 -0000
From: "anpaza at mail dot ru" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/63625] -flto breaks optimization during link phase on arm-none-eabi without -O on linker (!) command line
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:59:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: anpaza at mail dot ru
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
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: version resolution
Message-ID: <bug-63625-4-WYf2Z8yyIK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63625-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63625-4@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: 2014-10/txt/msg01900.txt.bz2
Content-length: 485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc625

Andrew Zabolotny <anpaza at mail dot ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|unknown                     |4.8.1
         Resolution|FIXED                       |INVALID

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Zabolotny <anpaza at mail dot ru> ---
Indeed, you are right.
Glad it's solved in 4.9.
Closing the bug, then.

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, I think we may get confused by having ADDRESSABLE flag set because the
original function body took its address and it makes sense to clear it as
Martin suggest.
I am bit confused on why this leads to ICE - I think false positive on
ADDRESSABLE flag ought to make cgraphunit to introduce extra copy in:

      if (nargs)
        for (i = 1, arg = DECL_CHAIN (a); i < nargs; i++, arg = DECL_CHAIN
(arg))
          {
            tree tmp = arg;
            if (!is_gimple_val (arg))
              {
                tmp = create_tmp_reg (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT
                                      (TREE_TYPE (arg)), "arg");
                gimple stmt = gimple_build_assign (tmp, arg);
                gsi_insert_after (&bsi, stmt, GSI_NEW_STMT);
              }
            vargs.quick_push (tmp);
          }

that may later end up on stack and prevent call from being a tail call.

I see that later optimizers may not be able to optimize out the extra copy
simply because it is bit hard to do: one needs to verify that the original
location is dead and possibly may be rewritten by a callee.

I did not find any code that would prevent clearning ADDRESSABLE flag on
parameters, so I think Martin's patch is correct.

Additionally I think it is not safe to set TAILCALL flag if the code above
introduced a local variable. This is becuase setting this flag by hand bypasses
logic in suitable_for_tail_call_opt_p that prevents tail call conversion when
any ADDRESSABLE vars exists.

I did not find any reasons why ADDRESSABLE flag should be set on parameter
besides the usual case that it has address taken, so I tink Martin's patch is
OK and correct fix.

Martin, does it fix the other PR too?

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov  7 13:37:41 2014
New Revision: 217222

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR ipa/63580
        * cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::create_wrapper):
    TREE_ADDRESSABLE is set to false for a newly created thunk.
    * g++.dg/ipa/pr63580.C: New test.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr63580.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>From gcc-bugs-return-465973-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Nov 07 13:39:47 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-465973-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1916 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2014 13:39:47 -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 1873 invoked by uid 48); 7 Nov 2014 13:39:42 -0000
From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/63244] [4.9/5 regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:39:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63244-4-JMkQHihlBh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63244-4@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: 2014-11/txt/msg00445.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1688

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc244

--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
On x86_64:

markus@x4 /tmp % cat sock.i
struct sock
{
  int sk_userlocks : 4;
} a;
const struct sock b;
void
fn1 ()
{
  a.sk_userlocks = b.sk_userlocks & 1;
}

markus@x4 /tmp % gcc -O2 -c sock.i
gcc: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1)
0x40c043 execute
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:2908
0x40c2f9 do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:4724
0x40ef96 process_brace_body
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:6007
0x40ef96 handle_braces
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5921
0x40d0e7 do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5378
0x40ef96 process_brace_body
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:6007
0x40ef96 handle_braces
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5921
0x40d0e7 do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5378
0x40cfee do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5493
0x40ef96 process_brace_body
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:6007
0x40ef96 handle_braces
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5921
0x40d0e7 do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5378
0x40ef96 process_brace_body
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:6007
0x40ef96 handle_braces
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5921
0x40d0e7 do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5378
0x40ef96 process_brace_body
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:6007
0x40ef96 handle_braces
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5921
0x40d0e7 do_spec_1
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5378
0x40ef96 process_brace_body
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:6007
0x40ef96 handle_braces
        ../../gcc/gcc/gcc.c:5921
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The original testcase still ICEs on ppc64.

[Bug ipa/63580] [5 Regression] ICE : error: invalid argument to gimple call

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580

Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> The original testcase still ICEs on ppc64.

Sorry, it actually works fine now.