From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58B2238207F9 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 58B2238207F9 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 25N1MJ0R022968; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:38 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3gvef1rtf6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:38 +0000 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 25N20AQ8006676; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:37 GMT Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3gvef1rte6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:37 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 25N1ZCCf023100; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:35 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3gv3j68kkm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:35 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 25N22XV022151670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:33 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4078A4040; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2C1A4051; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.197.246.188] (unknown [9.197.246.188]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:31 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <10f2af43-d178-5416-fdd8-e93e7cbf4df7@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:02:30 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: PING^2 [PATCH v3] rs6000: Fix the check of bif argument number [PR104482] Content-Language: en-US To: GCC Patches Cc: Segher Boessenkool , David Edelsohn References: <8a331b83-5dac-53e6-630c-0a03a18662d9@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: <8a331b83-5dac-53e6-630c-0a03a18662d9@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: k3GVHbMJiDR6B9s6_MfktBDtkbjzmbUw X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: rxe60TXW40RL-Cpp2E1RVJ59YCg13fpz Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-06-22_10,2022-06-22_03,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2204290000 definitions=main-2206230005 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:02:41 -0000 Hi, Gentle ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595208.html BR, Kewen >> Hi, >> >> As PR104482 shown, it's one regression about the handlings when >> the argument number is more than the one of built-in function >> prototype. The new bif support only catches the case that the >> argument number is less than the one of function prototype, but >> it misses the case that the argument number is more than the one >> of function prototype. Because it uses "n != expected_args", >> n is updated in >> >> for (n = 0; !VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_VALUE (fnargs)) && n < nargs; >> fnargs = TREE_CHAIN (fnargs), n++) >> >> , it's restricted to be less than or equal to expected_args with >> the guard !VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_VALUE (fnargs)), so it's wrong. >> >> The fix is to use nargs instead, also move the checking hunk's >> location ahead to avoid useless further scanning when the counts >> mismatch. >> >> Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux-gnu P8 and >> powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and P10. >> >> v3: Update test case with dg-excess-errors. >> >> v2: Add one test case and refine commit logs. >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593155.html >> >> v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591768.html >> >> Is it ok for trunk? >> >> BR, >> Kewen >> ----- >> PR target/104482 >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc (altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin): Fix >> the equality check for argument number, and move this hunk ahead. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr104482.c: New test. >> --- >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc | 60 ++++++++++----------- >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr104482.c | 16 ++++++ >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr104482.c >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc >> index 9c8cbd7a66e..61881f29230 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc >> @@ -1756,6 +1756,36 @@ altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin (location_t loc, tree fndecl, >> vec *arglist = static_cast *> (passed_arglist); >> unsigned int nargs = vec_safe_length (arglist); >> >> + /* If the number of arguments did not match the prototype, return NULL >> + and the generic code will issue the appropriate error message. Skip >> + this test for functions where we don't fully describe all the possible >> + overload signatures in rs6000-overload.def (because they aren't relevant >> + to the expansion here). If we don't, we get confusing error messages. */ >> + /* As an example, for vec_splats we have: >> + >> +; There are no actual builtins for vec_splats. There is special handling for >> +; this in altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin in rs6000-c.cc, where the call >> +; is replaced by a constructor. The single overload here causes >> +; __builtin_vec_splats to be registered with the front end so that can happen. >> +[VEC_SPLATS, vec_splats, __builtin_vec_splats] >> + vsi __builtin_vec_splats (vsi); >> + ABS_V4SI SPLATS_FAKERY >> + >> + So even though __builtin_vec_splats accepts all vector types, the >> + infrastructure cheats and just records one prototype. We end up getting >> + an error message that refers to this specific prototype even when we >> + are handling a different argument type. That is completely confusing >> + to the user, so it's best to let these cases be handled individually >> + in the resolve_vec_splats, etc., helper functions. */ >> + >> + if (expected_args != nargs >> + && !(fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_PROMOTE >> + || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_SPLATS >> + || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_EXTRACT >> + || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_INSERT >> + || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_STEP)) >> + return NULL; >> + >> for (n = 0; >> !VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_VALUE (fnargs)) && n < nargs; >> fnargs = TREE_CHAIN (fnargs), n++) >> @@ -1816,36 +1846,6 @@ altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin (location_t loc, tree fndecl, >> types[n] = type; >> } >> >> - /* If the number of arguments did not match the prototype, return NULL >> - and the generic code will issue the appropriate error message. Skip >> - this test for functions where we don't fully describe all the possible >> - overload signatures in rs6000-overload.def (because they aren't relevant >> - to the expansion here). If we don't, we get confusing error messages. */ >> - /* As an example, for vec_splats we have: >> - >> -; There are no actual builtins for vec_splats. There is special handling for >> -; this in altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin in rs6000-c.cc, where the call >> -; is replaced by a constructor. The single overload here causes >> -; __builtin_vec_splats to be registered with the front end so that can happen. >> -[VEC_SPLATS, vec_splats, __builtin_vec_splats] >> - vsi __builtin_vec_splats (vsi); >> - ABS_V4SI SPLATS_FAKERY >> - >> - So even though __builtin_vec_splats accepts all vector types, the >> - infrastructure cheats and just records one prototype. We end up getting >> - an error message that refers to this specific prototype even when we >> - are handling a different argument type. That is completely confusing >> - to the user, so it's best to let these cases be handled individually >> - in the resolve_vec_splats, etc., helper functions. */ >> - >> - if (n != expected_args >> - && !(fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_PROMOTE >> - || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_SPLATS >> - || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_EXTRACT >> - || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_INSERT >> - || fcode == RS6000_OVLD_VEC_STEP)) >> - return NULL; >> - >> /* Some overloads require special handling. */ >> tree returned_expr = NULL; >> resolution res = unresolved; >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr104482.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr104482.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..92191265e4c >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr104482.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-mvsx" } */ >> + >> +/* It's to verify no ICE here, ignore error messages about >> + mismatch argument number since they are not test points >> + here. */ >> +/* { dg-excess-errors "pr104482" } */ >> + >> +__attribute__ ((altivec (vector__))) int vsi; >> + >> +double >> +testXXPERMDI (void) >> +{ >> + return __builtin_vsx_xxpermdi (vsi, vsi, 2, 4); >> +} >> + >