[Bug c++/65014] New: ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[Bug c++/65014] New: ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014

            Bug ID: 65014
           Summary: ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com

Created attachment 34721
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34721&action=edit
C++ source code

The attached code does the following with trunk dated 20150211

$ ../results/bin/gcc -c bug185.cc
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:33:49: warning: register of ‘T0’
used for multiple global register variables
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:33:18: note: conflicts with ‘A0’
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:34:49: warning: register of ‘T1’
used for multiple global register variables
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:34:18: note: conflicts with ‘A1’
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:35:49: warning: register of ‘T2’
used for multiple global register variables
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:35:18: note: conflicts with ‘A2’
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp: In function ‘void
op_rol_32_T0_im(’:
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:166:6: error: type mismatch in
shift expression
unsigned int
unsigned int
int *
T0.167 = T0.166 r<< &__op_PARAM1;
../kpx_cpu/src/cpu/jit/basic-dyngen-ops.cpp:166:6: internal compiler error:
verify_gimple failed
0xc05b14 verify_gimple_in_seq(gimple_statement_base*)
    ../../src/trunk/gcc/tree-cfg.c:4736
0x9f0710 gimplify_body(tree_node*, bool)
    ../../src/trunk/gcc/gimplify.c:9117
0x9f0e7c gimplify_function_tree(tree_node*)
    ../../src/trunk/gcc/gimplify.c:9202
0x835f42 cgraph_node::analyze()
    ../../src/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c:631
0x839c5a analyze_functions()
>From gcc-bugs-return-476804-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Feb 11 10:08:27 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-476804-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20649 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2015 10:08:27 -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 20489 invoked by uid 55); 11 Feb 2015 10:08:24 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/61886] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] LTO breaks fread with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, lto, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61886-4-kYw0C63FqX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61886-4@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: 2015-02/txt/msg01137.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida886

--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Richard Biener wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida886
> >
> > --- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> > > So, do we really want to go without this fixed again, for GCC 5?  Honza?  After
> > > all this is an underlying wrong-code issue!  (wrong function is picked as
> > > prevailing)
> >
> > Well, I have only two hands and do not see reasonably simple solution. Will
> > look into it
> > again.  How this cause wrong code?
>
> Hmm, maybe it can't (the "aliases" map to the same symbol).  But at least
> if I produce another decl with say, attribute(regparm), and that gets
> picked even though I didn't call it then it would be wrong-code
> (of course that decl is technically invalid as the symbol it refers to
> has different calling conventions).

Like

extern void fooreg (int i) __attribute__((regparm)) __asm__ ("bar");
extern void foo (int i) __asm__ ("bar");

void forward (int i, int reg)
{
  if (reg)
    fooreg (i);
  else
    foo (i);
}

and use it like LD_PRELOAD=libwithregparm.so ./test --regparm.

Poor-mans ifuncs ;)

[Bug c++/65014] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-02-11
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
That's a funny rotate.  Confirmed.

[Bug tree-optimization/65014] [5 Regression] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1
          Component|c++                         |tree-optimization
      Known to work|                            |4.9.2
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.0
            Summary|ice with error: type        |[5 Regression] ice with
                   |mismatch in shift           |error: type mismatch in
                   |expression                  |shift expression

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
4.9 works.

[Bug tree-optimization/65014] [5 Regression] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reduced testcase:

extern int x;

unsigned
foo (unsigned int y)
{
  return (y << ((long) &x)) | (y >> (32 - ((long) &x)));
}

Guess it is r218142 that started this.  Anyway, will have a look.

[Bug tree-optimization/65014] [5 Regression] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:45:27 2015
New Revision: 220640

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR tree-optimization/65014
    * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): When creating {L,R}ROTATE_EXPR,
    use original second operand of arg0 or arg1 instead of
    that adjusted by STRIP_NOPS.

    * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr65014.c: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr65014.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug tree-optimization/65014] [5 Regression] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.