* [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash
2021-01-14 19:48 [Bug c++/98690] New: unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash savoiu at yahoo dot com
@ 2021-01-15 8:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-15 8:40 ` [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-15 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Last reconfirmed| |2021-01-15
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords| |wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P2
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|unexpected |[10/11 Regression]
|"'removed_return.213' may |unexpected
|be used uninitialized in |"'removed_return.213' may
|this function" causes crash |be used uninitialized in
| |this function" causes crash
Component|middle-end |ipa
CC| |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. -fno-ipa-sra fixes it. Martin?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6
2021-01-14 19:48 [Bug c++/98690] New: unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash savoiu at yahoo dot com
2021-01-15 8:29 ` [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-15 8:40 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-18 19:27 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-15 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10/11 Regression]
|unexpected |unexpected
|"'removed_return.213' may |"'removed_return.213' may
|be used uninitialized in |be used uninitialized in
|this function" causes crash |this function" causes crash
| |since
| |r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, started when IPA SRA was added.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6
2021-01-14 19:48 [Bug c++/98690] New: unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash savoiu at yahoo dot com
2021-01-15 8:29 ` [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-15 8:40 ` [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-18 19:27 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-19 10:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-18 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563790.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6
2021-01-14 19:48 [Bug c++/98690] New: unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash savoiu at yahoo dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-18 19:27 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-19 10:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-19 14:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-21 11:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-19 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor <jamborm@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b8741c98f2876a430c12c85b396d29a87c9c488
commit r11-6786-g9b8741c98f2876a430c12c85b396d29a87c9c488
Author: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
Date: Tue Jan 19 11:28:48 2021 +0100
ipa-sra: Do not remove return values needed because of non-call EH
IPA-SRA already contains a check to figure out that an otherwise dead
parameter is actually required because of non-call exceptions, but it
is not present at the equivalent spot where SRA figures out whether
the return statement is used for anything useful. This patch adds
that condition there.
Unfortunately, even though this patch should be good enough for any
normal (I'd even say reasonable) use of the compiler, it hints that
when the user manually switches all sorts of DCE, IPA-SRA would
probably leave behind problematic statements manipulating what
originally were return values, just like it does for parameters (PR
93385). Fixing this properly might unfortunately be a separate issue
from the mentioned bug because the LHS of a call is changed during
call redirection and the caller often is not a clone. But I'll see
what I can do.
Meanwhile, the patch below has been bootstrapped and tested on x86_64.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2021-01-18 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR ipa/98690
* ipa-sra.c (ssa_name_only_returned_p): New parameter fun. Check
whether non-call exceptions allow removal of a statement.
(isra_analyze_call): Pass the appropriate function to
ssa_name_only_returned_p.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2021-01-18 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR ipa/98690
* g++.dg/ipa/pr98690.C: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6
2021-01-14 19:48 [Bug c++/98690] New: unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash savoiu at yahoo dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-19 10:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-19 14:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-21 11:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-19 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor
<jamborm@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0a9e37150c448d7058550398ad98c74fcb33b595
commit r10-9280-g0a9e37150c448d7058550398ad98c74fcb33b595
Author: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
Date: Tue Jan 19 15:50:49 2021 +0100
ipa-sra: Do not remove return values needed because of non-call EH
IPA-SRA already contains a check to figure out that an otherwise dead
parameter is actually required because of non-call exceptions, but it
is not present at the equivalent spot where SRA figures out whether
the return statement is used for anything useful. This patch adds
that condition there.
Unfortunately, even though this patch should be good enough for any
normal (I'd even say reasonable) use of the compiler, it hints that
when the user manually switches all sorts of DCE, IPA-SRA would
probably leave behind problematic statements manipulating what
originally were return values, just like it does for parameters (PR
93385). Fixing this properly might unfortunately be a separate issue
from the mentioned bug because the LHS of a call is changed during
call redirection and the caller often is not a clone. But I'll see
what I can do.
Meanwhile, the patch below has been bootstrapped and tested on x86_64.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2021-01-18 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR ipa/98690
* ipa-sra.c (ssa_name_only_returned_p): New parameter fun. Check
whether non-call exceptions allow removal of a statement.
(isra_analyze_call): Pass the appropriate function to
ssa_name_only_returned_p.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2021-01-18 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR ipa/98690
* g++.dg/ipa/pr98690.C: New test.
(cherry picked from commit 9b8741c98f2876a430c12c85b396d29a87c9c488)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug ipa/98690] [10/11 Regression] unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash since r10-3311-gff6686d2e5f797d6
2021-01-14 19:48 [Bug c++/98690] New: unexpected "'removed_return.213' may be used uninitialized in this function" causes crash savoiu at yahoo dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-19 14:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-21 11:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-21 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98690
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Assuming fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread