* [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword @ 2022-03-21 9:13 Jiufu Guo 2022-03-21 18:14 ` David Edelsohn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-03-21 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, guojiufu Hi! There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" and near the end of the file. Like the case in PR101168: using vdbl = __vector double; #define BREAK 1 For this case, "__vector double" is not followed by a PP_NAME, it is followed by CPP_SEMICOLON and then EOF. In this case, there is no more tokens in the file. Then, do not need to continue to parse the file. This patch pass bootstrap and regtest on ppc64 and ppc64le. BR, Jiufu PR preprocessor/101168 gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc (rs6000_macro_to_expand): Avoid empty identifier. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C: New test. --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc | 4 +++- gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc index 3b62b499df2..f8cc7bad812 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc @@ -282,7 +282,9 @@ rs6000_macro_to_expand (cpp_reader *pfile, const cpp_token *tok) expand_bool_pixel = __pixel_keyword; else if (ident == C_CPP_HASHNODE (__bool_keyword)) expand_bool_pixel = __bool_keyword; - else + + /* If it needs to check tokens continue. */ + else if (ident) { /* Try two tokens down, too. */ do diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..284e77fdc88 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_altivec_ok } */ +/* { dg-options "-maltivec" } */ + +using vdbl = __vector double; +#define BREAK 1 -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword 2022-03-21 9:13 [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword Jiufu Guo @ 2022-03-21 18:14 ` David Edelsohn 2022-03-21 18:34 ` Segher Boessenkool 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: David Edelsohn @ 2022-03-21 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: GCC Patches, Segher Boessenkool On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:13 AM Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" > and near the end of the file. > > Like the case in PR101168: > using vdbl = __vector double; > #define BREAK 1 > > For this case, "__vector double" is not followed by a PP_NAME, it is > followed by CPP_SEMICOLON and then EOF. In this case, there is no > more tokens in the file. Then, do not need to continue to parse the > file. > > This patch pass bootstrap and regtest on ppc64 and ppc64le. This is okay. Maybe a tweak to the comment, see below. Thanks, David > > > BR, > Jiufu > > > PR preprocessor/101168 > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc (rs6000_macro_to_expand): > Avoid empty identifier. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C: New test. > > > --- > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc | 4 +++- > gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C | 6 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C > > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc > index 3b62b499df2..f8cc7bad812 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc > @@ -282,7 +282,9 @@ rs6000_macro_to_expand (cpp_reader *pfile, const cpp_token *tok) > expand_bool_pixel = __pixel_keyword; > else if (ident == C_CPP_HASHNODE (__bool_keyword)) > expand_bool_pixel = __bool_keyword; > - else > + > + /* If it needs to check tokens continue. */ Maybe /* If there are more tokens to check. */ ? > + else if (ident) > { > /* Try two tokens down, too. */ > do > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..284e77fdc88 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr101168.C > @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_altivec_ok } */ > +/* { dg-options "-maltivec" } */ > + > +using vdbl = __vector double; > +#define BREAK 1 > -- > 2.25.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword 2022-03-21 18:14 ` David Edelsohn @ 2022-03-21 18:34 ` Segher Boessenkool 2022-03-22 5:50 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2022-03-21 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Edelsohn; +Cc: Jiufu Guo, GCC Patches On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:14:08PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:13 AM Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" > > and near the end of the file. > This is okay. Maybe a tweak to the comment, see below. This whole function could use some restructuring / rewriting to make clearer what it actually does. See the function comment: /* Called to decide whether a conditional macro should be expanded. Since we have exactly one such macro (i.e, 'vector'), we do not need to examine the 'tok' parameter. */ ... followed by 17 uses of "tok". Yes, some of those overwrite the function argument, but that doesn't make it any better! :-P Some factoring would help, too, perhaps. Segher ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword 2022-03-21 18:34 ` Segher Boessenkool @ 2022-03-22 5:50 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-03-22 14:25 ` Segher Boessenkool 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-03-22 5:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: David Edelsohn, GCC Patches Hi! Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:14:08PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:13 AM Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> > There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" >> > and near the end of the file. > >> This is okay. Maybe a tweak to the comment, see below. > > This whole function could use some restructuring / rewriting to make > clearer what it actually does. See the function comment: > > /* Called to decide whether a conditional macro should be expanded. > Since we have exactly one such macro (i.e, 'vector'), we do not > need to examine the 'tok' parameter. */ > > ... followed by 17 uses of "tok". Yes, some of those overwrite the > function argument, but that doesn't make it any better! :-P > > Some factoring would help, too, perhaps. Thanks for your review! I am also confused about it when I check this function for the first time. In the function, 'tok' is used directly at the beginning, and then it is overwritten by cpp_peek_token. From the history of this function, the first version of this function contains this 'inconsistency' between comments and implementations. :-P With check related code, it seems this function is used to predicate if a conditional macro should be expanded by peeking two or more tokens. The context-sensitive macros are vector/bool/pixel. Correponding keywords __vector/__bool/__pixel are unconditional. Based on those related codes, the behavior of function rs6000_macro_to_expand would be checking if the 'vector' token is followed by bool/__bool or pixel/__pixel. To do this the 'tok' has to be 'examined'. From this understanding, we may just update the comment. While the patch does not cover this. BR, Jiufu > > > Segher ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword 2022-03-22 5:50 ` Jiufu Guo @ 2022-03-22 14:25 ` Segher Boessenkool 2022-03-23 3:37 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2022-03-22 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: David Edelsohn, GCC Patches Hi! On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 01:50:39PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:14:08PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:13 AM Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" > >> > and near the end of the file. > > > >> This is okay. Maybe a tweak to the comment, see below. > > > > This whole function could use some restructuring / rewriting to make > > clearer what it actually does. See the function comment: > > > > /* Called to decide whether a conditional macro should be expanded. > > Since we have exactly one such macro (i.e, 'vector'), we do not > > need to examine the 'tok' parameter. */ > > > > ... followed by 17 uses of "tok". Yes, some of those overwrite the > > function argument, but that doesn't make it any better! :-P > > > > Some factoring would help, too, perhaps. > > Thanks for your review! > > I am also confused about it when I check this function for the first > time. In the function, 'tok' is used directly at the beginning, and > then it is overwritten by cpp_peek_token. > >From the history of this function, the first version of this function > contains this 'inconsistency' between comments and implementations. :-P > > With check related code, it seems this function is used to predicate > if a conditional macro should be expanded by peeking two or more > tokens. Yes, and the function comment should say that, that's what it's for :-) > The context-sensitive macros are vector/bool/pixel. Correponding > keywords __vector/__bool/__pixel are unconditional. > Based on those related codes, the behavior of function > rs6000_macro_to_expand would be checking if the 'vector' token is > followed by bool/__bool or pixel/__pixel. To do this the 'tok' has to > be 'examined'. > > >From this understanding, we may just update the comment. > While the patch does not cover this. Yes, and it doesn't have to, probably it's best not to change the code much in stage 4 anyway. It is really hard to fix bugs in it, or to review the resulting patches, without documentation what it is supposed to do (especially if the code isn't clear, is inconsistent, and even contradicts the little documentation that there is). Oh well. Segher ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword 2022-03-22 14:25 ` Segher Boessenkool @ 2022-03-23 3:37 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-03-23 3:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: David Edelsohn, GCC Patches Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > Hi! > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 01:50:39PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes: >> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:14:08PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:13 AM Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> > There is a rare corner case: where __vector is followed only with ";" >> >> > and near the end of the file. >> > >> >> This is okay. Maybe a tweak to the comment, see below. >> > >> > This whole function could use some restructuring / rewriting to make >> > clearer what it actually does. See the function comment: >> > >> > /* Called to decide whether a conditional macro should be expanded. >> > Since we have exactly one such macro (i.e, 'vector'), we do not >> > need to examine the 'tok' parameter. */ >> > >> > ... followed by 17 uses of "tok". Yes, some of those overwrite the >> > function argument, but that doesn't make it any better! :-P >> > >> > Some factoring would help, too, perhaps. >> >> Thanks for your review! >> >> I am also confused about it when I check this function for the first >> time. In the function, 'tok' is used directly at the beginning, and >> then it is overwritten by cpp_peek_token. >> >From the history of this function, the first version of this function >> contains this 'inconsistency' between comments and implementations. :-P >> >> With check related code, it seems this function is used to predicate >> if a conditional macro should be expanded by peeking two or more >> tokens. > > Yes, and the function comment should say that, that's what it's for :-) > >> The context-sensitive macros are vector/bool/pixel. Correponding >> keywords __vector/__bool/__pixel are unconditional. >> Based on those related codes, the behavior of function >> rs6000_macro_to_expand would be checking if the 'vector' token is >> followed by bool/__bool or pixel/__pixel. To do this the 'tok' has to >> be 'examined'. >> >> >From this understanding, we may just update the comment. >> While the patch does not cover this. > > Yes, and it doesn't have to, probably it's best not to change the code > much in stage 4 anyway. It is really hard to fix bugs in it, or to > review the resulting patches, without documentation what it is supposed > to do (especially if the code isn't clear, is inconsistent, and even > contradicts the little documentation that there is). Thanks for your comments! Understand. :) I would commit the patch and submit patch to update the comments in stage 1. BR, Jiufu > > Oh well. > > > Segher ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-23 3:38 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-03-21 9:13 [PATCH]rs6000: avoid peeking eof after __vector keyword Jiufu Guo 2022-03-21 18:14 ` David Edelsohn 2022-03-21 18:34 ` Segher Boessenkool 2022-03-22 5:50 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-03-22 14:25 ` Segher Boessenkool 2022-03-23 3:37 ` Jiufu Guo
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).