public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/95940] [11 Regression] bootstrap broken by -Wmaybe-unintialized warnings
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 07:46:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-95940-4-uULs2I0bPd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-95940-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[11 Regression]             |[11 Regression] bootstrap
                   |sparc64-linux bootstrap     |broken by
                   |with gcc-9.3 broken         |-Wmaybe-unintialized
                   |                            |warnings
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The first -Wmaybe-unintialized warning is issued for the read in this
statement:

  SR.1076_294 = D.75512.D.16218.val[1];

in the following basic block:

  <bb 24> [local count: 130803720]:
  # SR.268_98 = PHI <_104(23), _75(39)>
  D.75553 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75512 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  xi ={v} {CLOBBER};
  SR.1076_294 = D.75512.D.16218.val[1];   <<< warning
  SR.1077_296 = D.75512.D.16218.val[2];   <<< warning
  D.75512 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75513 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  goto <bb 33>; [100.00%]

Since D.75512 is clobbered just prior to the read from it I think the warning
is justified.  Subsequent warnings follow a similar pattern:

  <bb 26> [local count: 349243402]:
  # SR.268_123 = PHI <_129(25), -1(41)>
  D.75575 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75514 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  xi ={v} {CLOBBER};
  SR.1076_230 = D.75514.D.16218.val[1];   <<< warning
  SR.1077_105 = D.75514.D.16218.val[2];   <<< warning
  D.75514 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75515 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  goto <bb 33>; [100.00%]
  ...
  <bb 31> [local count: 68586742]:
  # SR.268_148 = PHI <_154(30), -1(40)>
  D.75597 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75516 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  xi ={v} {CLOBBER};
  SR.1076_219 = D.75516.D.16218.val[1];   <<< warning
  SR.1077_220 = D.75516.D.16218.val[2];   <<< warning
  D.75516 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75517 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  goto <bb 33>; [100.00%]

--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The first -Wmaybe-unintialized warning is issued for the read in this
statement:

  SR.1076_294 = D.75512.D.16218.val[1];

in the following basic block:

  <bb 24> [local count: 130803720]:
  # SR.268_98 = PHI <_104(23), _75(39)>
  D.75553 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75512 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  xi ={v} {CLOBBER};
  SR.1076_294 = D.75512.D.16218.val[1];   <<< warning
  SR.1077_296 = D.75512.D.16218.val[2];   <<< warning
  D.75512 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75513 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  goto <bb 33>; [100.00%]

Since D.75512 is clobbered just prior to the read from it I think the warning
is justified.  Subsequent warnings follow a similar pattern:

  <bb 26> [local count: 349243402]:
  # SR.268_123 = PHI <_129(25), -1(41)>
  D.75575 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75514 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  xi ={v} {CLOBBER};
  SR.1076_230 = D.75514.D.16218.val[1];   <<< warning
  SR.1077_105 = D.75514.D.16218.val[2];   <<< warning
  D.75514 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75515 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  goto <bb 33>; [100.00%]
  ...
  <bb 31> [local count: 68586742]:
  # SR.268_148 = PHI <_154(30), -1(40)>
  D.75597 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75516 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  xi ={v} {CLOBBER};
  SR.1076_219 = D.75516.D.16218.val[1];   <<< warning
  SR.1077_220 = D.75516.D.16218.val[2];   <<< warning
  D.75516 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  D.75517 ={v} {CLOBBER};
  goto <bb 33>; [100.00%]

--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> From the look of it, something is already miscompiled.

No, not at all, it's just warnings turned into errors.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-07-01  7:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-27 11:43 [Bug bootstrap/95940] New: sparc64-linux bootstrap with gcc-9.3 broken hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-29 10:35 ` [Bug bootstrap/95940] [11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-29 14:48 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-29 20:49 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-29 20:53 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-01  7:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-07-02  3:15 ` [Bug bootstrap/95940] [11 Regression] bootstrap broken by -Wmaybe-unintialized warnings hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-02  6:57 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-95940-4-uULs2I0bPd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).