public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/98499] [11 Regression] Possibly bad std::string initialization in constructors
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:55:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-98499-4-N1CJHiZLNB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-98499-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98499
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thanks for all the detailed analysis and sorry for getting into this late.
> Oh, thank you! Only after many printf() attempts it sunk in that `036t.ealias` is using data from seemingly later `043t.modref1` pass. It is so confusing!
This is because it is an inter-procedural analysis. We compile in topological
order and propagate info from function to callers.
Here I think poblem is:
void Importer::Importer (struct Importer * const this)
{
struct string * _1;
<bb 2> :
*this_3(D) ={v} {CLOBBER};
*this_3(D).base_path = dir_name (); [return slot optimization]
return;
}
We get parm 0 flags: direct noescape nodirectescape
While dir_name does:
struct string dir_name ()
{
<bb 2> :
string::string (_2(D));
return _2(D);
}
and that gets to
void string::string (struct string * const this)
{
char[16] * _1;
<bb 2> :
*this_3(D) ={v} {CLOBBER};
_1 = &this_3(D)->_M_local_buf;
*this_3(D)._M_buf = _1;
return;
}
which indeed conflict with noescape.
So problem here is that return slot optimized variables are behaving kind of
like parameters. Since modref does not track EAF flags for them I think your
conservative fix makes sense.
It is also relatively easy to track the EAF flags here, I will try to get quick
stats on how often this makes difference (and whether we want to add trakcing
now or next stage1).
Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-28 10:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-02 11:11 [Bug c++/98499] New: " slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-02 22:22 ` [Bug c++/98499] " slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-03 11:44 ` slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-03 20:56 ` slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-03 21:50 ` slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-04 12:28 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-05 11:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-06 23:11 ` [Bug tree-optimization/98499] " slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-07 8:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-10 18:39 ` slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-28 10:55 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-01-30 18:02 ` slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-01 18:14 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-01 18:39 ` slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-01 18:40 ` slyfox 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-98499-4-N1CJHiZLNB@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).