* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2015-03-12 17:52 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 0:42 ` amodra at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-12 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
shot in the dark here, but this wouldn't happen to be similar to:
PR 65358 ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-03-12 17:52 ` [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-13 0:42 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2015-03-13 9:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2015-03-13 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> ---
PR 65358 smells different to me, probably an arm backend bug. This one does
look like it might have the same underlying problem as PR 58744, but I haven't
analysed either bug so just a wild guess on my part..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-03-12 17:52 ` [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 0:42 ` amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2015-03-13 9:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-14 3:19 ` amodra at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-13 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
ISTR there is an even older bug for this - PR36043.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-13 9:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-14 3:19 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2015-03-18 9:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2015-03-14 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2015-03-14
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 35032
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35032&action=edit
prototype patch
Patch I'm about to test
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-14 3:19 ` amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2015-03-18 9:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-18 11:07 ` amodra at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-18 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Note that code quality is an issue here as well. Cases to consider are
struct test obj;
void foo()
{
func (obj);
}
and
void foo()
{
struct test obj;
func (obj);
}
and
void foo (struct test obj)
{
func (obj);
}
where we might (or might not) be sure that there is at least one 'int' mapped
after 'obj' (not for the global var case at least - but I'm less sure about
the other two cases (red zone? return address?))
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-18 9:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-18 11:07 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2015-04-15 7:29 ` amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2015-03-18 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> ---
Code quality for both powerpc64le and x86_64 looks passable for the testcase
here and other structs with at least one int field (ie. when the struct size is
a multiple of 4, and alignment is 4). You get DImode loads followed by an
SImode load if the struct isn't a multiple of 8 in size.
Code quality does suffer a little for big-endian since any SImode load at the
end of the struct needs to be shifted, whereas a DImode loading past the end of
the struct needs no shifting.
For cases where the struct size isn't a multiple of 4, code quality certainly
does suffer, worst case being a struct of size 7 that would now be loaded by 7
byte loads.. Should we care more about that than a segfault in real-world user
code? Hmm. Answering my own question, I guess that since pr36043 is nearly
seven years old, we don't care too much about segfaults!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-18 11:07 ` amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2015-04-15 7:29 ` amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-30 7:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-15 7:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra <amodra at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Apr 15 07:29:01 2015
New Revision: 222115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65408
PR target/58744
PR middle-end/36043
* calls.c (load_register_parameters): Don't load past end of
mem unless suitably aligned.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr65408.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/calls.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-15 7:29 ` amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-30 7:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-30 11:12 ` amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-30 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We've had some 15 days without any fallout noticed. Backporting this for GCC
5.2 now (or whenever it suits you) is pre-approved (even if it's not a
regression).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-30 7:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-30 11:12 ` amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-30 11:15 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2015-04-30 11:15 ` amodra at gmail dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-30 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra <amodra at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Apr 30 11:11:34 2015
New Revision: 222616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65408
PR target/58744
PR middle-end/36043
* calls.c (load_register_parameters): Don't load past end of
mem unless suitably aligned.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr65408.c: New.
Added:
branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr65408.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/calls.c
branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-30 11:12 ` amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-30 11:15 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2015-04-30 11:15 ` amodra at gmail dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2015-04-30 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed for 5.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory
[not found] <bug-65408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-30 11:15 ` amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2015-04-30 11:15 ` amodra at gmail dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2015-04-30 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Bug 65408 depends on bug 36043, which changed state.
Bug 36043 Summary: gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread