* Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI @ 2015-11-16 22:25 Kugan 2015-11-17 1:00 ` Charles Baylis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2015-11-16 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches; +Cc: Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --] Following testcase fails on ARM (from https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1900). __attribute__ ((noinline)) double direct(int x, ...) { return x*x; } __attribute__ ((noinline)) double broken(double (*indirect)(int x, ...), int v) { return indirect(v); } int main () { double d1, d2; int i = 2; d1 = broken (direct, i); if (d1 != i*i) { __builtin_abort (); } return 0; } Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect". "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard. "broken" is a non-variadic function and will return the value in floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be doing sibcall here. Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. Is this OK if no issues with the testing? Thanks, Kugan gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-11-17 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Disable sibcall to indirect function when TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2015-11-17 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> * gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c: New test. [-- Attachment #2: p.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --] diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index a379121..8b560bc 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -6681,6 +6681,12 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) register. */ rtx a, b; + /* When it is an indirect call (i.e, decl == NULL), it could be + returning its result in a VFP or could be a variadic function. + Thus return false. */ + if (!decl && TARGET_HARD_FLOAT) + return false; + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), cfun->decl, false); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c index e69de29..86f07fe 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +/* { dg-do run } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */ + +__attribute__ ((noinline)) +double direct(int x, ...) +{ + return x*x; +} + +__attribute__ ((noinline)) +double broken(double (*indirect)(int x, ...), int v) +{ + return indirect(v); +} + +int main () +{ + double d1, d2; + int i = 2; + d1 = broken (direct, i); + if (d1 != i*i) + { + __builtin_abort (); + } + return 0; +} + ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-16 22:25 Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI Kugan @ 2015-11-17 1:00 ` Charles Baylis 2015-11-17 1:27 ` Kugan 2015-11-17 2:38 ` Kugan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Charles Baylis @ 2015-11-17 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kugan; +Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote: > Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect". > > "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard. > > "broken" is a non-variadic function and will return the value in > floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be > doing sibcall here. > > Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. > Is this OK if no issues with the testing? Hi Kugan, It looks like this patch should work, but I think this is an overly conservative fix, as it prevents all sibcalls for hardfloat targets. It would be better if only variadic sibcalls were prevented on hardfloat. You can check for variadic calls by checking the function_type in the call expression (exp) using stdarg_p(). As an example to show how to test for variadic function calls, this is how to test it in gdb: (gdb) b arm_function_ok_for_sibcall Breakpoint 1 at 0xdae59c: file /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c, line 6634. (gdb) r <snip>... Breakpoint 1, arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (decl=0x0, exp=0x7ffff6104ce8) at /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:6634 6634 if (cfun->machine->sibcall_blocked) (gdb) print debug_tree(exp) <call_expr 0x7ffff6104ce8 type <real_type 0x7ffff62835e8 double sizes-gimplified DF size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf18 constant 64> unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf30 constant 8> align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff62835e8 precision 64 pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff62837e0>> side-effects addressable fn <ssa_name 0x7ffff6275708 type <pointer_type 0x7ffff60e9540 type <function_type 0x7ffff60e9348> <snip>... (gdb) print stdarg_p((tree)0x7ffff60e9348) <--- from function_type ^^^^^ $2 = true ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-17 1:00 ` Charles Baylis @ 2015-11-17 1:27 ` Kugan 2015-11-17 2:38 ` Kugan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2015-11-17 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote: > On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect". >> >> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard. >> >> "broken" is a non-variadic function and will return the value in >> floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be >> doing sibcall here. >> >> Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. >> Is this OK if no issues with the testing? > > Hi Kugan, > > It looks like this patch should work, but I think this is an overly > conservative fix, as it prevents all sibcalls for hardfloat targets. > It would be better if only variadic sibcalls were prevented on > hardfloat. You can check for variadic calls by checking the > function_type in the call expression (exp) using stdarg_p(). > > As an example to show how to test for variadic function calls, this is > how to test it in gdb: > > (gdb) b arm_function_ok_for_sibcall > Breakpoint 1 at 0xdae59c: file > /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c, line 6634. > (gdb) r > <snip>... > Breakpoint 1, arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (decl=0x0, exp=0x7ffff6104ce8) > at /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:6634 > 6634 if (cfun->machine->sibcall_blocked) > (gdb) print debug_tree(exp) > <call_expr 0x7ffff6104ce8 > type <real_type 0x7ffff62835e8 double sizes-gimplified DF > size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf18 constant 64> > unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf30 constant 8> > align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff62835e8 > precision 64 > pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff62837e0>> > side-effects addressable > fn <ssa_name 0x7ffff6275708 > type <pointer_type 0x7ffff60e9540 type <function_type 0x7ffff60e9348> > <snip>... > (gdb) print stdarg_p((tree)0x7ffff60e9348) <--- from function_type ^^^^^ > $2 = true > Hi Charles, I wrongly thought that for indirect call we wouldn't know if it is variadic or not. I should check stdarg_p here. But we should really fix aapcs_allocate_return_reg as it is simply setting pcs_variant = arm_pcs_default without checking if this is stdarg_p. I will send an updated patch. Thanks, Kugan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-17 1:00 ` Charles Baylis 2015-11-17 1:27 ` Kugan @ 2015-11-17 2:38 ` Kugan 2015-11-17 10:05 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2015-11-17 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote: > On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect". >> >> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard. >> >> "broken" is a non-variadic function and will return the value in >> floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be >> doing sibcall here. >> >> Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. >> Is this OK if no issues with the testing? > > Hi Kugan, > > It looks like this patch should work, but I think this is an overly > conservative fix, as it prevents all sibcalls for hardfloat targets. > It would be better if only variadic sibcalls were prevented on > hardfloat. You can check for variadic calls by checking the > function_type in the call expression (exp) using stdarg_p(). > > As an example to show how to test for variadic function calls, this is > how to test it in gdb: > > (gdb) b arm_function_ok_for_sibcall > Breakpoint 1 at 0xdae59c: file > /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c, line 6634. > (gdb) r > <snip>... > Breakpoint 1, arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (decl=0x0, exp=0x7ffff6104ce8) > at /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:6634 > 6634 if (cfun->machine->sibcall_blocked) > (gdb) print debug_tree(exp) > <call_expr 0x7ffff6104ce8 > type <real_type 0x7ffff62835e8 double sizes-gimplified DF > size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf18 constant 64> > unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf30 constant 8> > align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff62835e8 > precision 64 > pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff62837e0>> > side-effects addressable > fn <ssa_name 0x7ffff6275708 > type <pointer_type 0x7ffff60e9540 type <function_type 0x7ffff60e9348> > <snip>... > (gdb) print stdarg_p((tree)0x7ffff60e9348) <--- from function_type ^^^^^ > $2 = true > How about: diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index a379121..2376d66 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -6681,6 +6681,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) register. */ rtx a, b; + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ + if (!decl + && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))) + && (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp)))) + == FUNCTION_TYPE)) + decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), cfun->decl, false); Thanks, Kugan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-17 2:38 ` Kugan @ 2015-11-17 10:05 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2015-11-17 19:56 ` Kugan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2015-11-17 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kugan, Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov Hi Kugan, It does look like an issue. Please open a bug report. > > > On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote: >> On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote: >> >>> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect". >>> >>> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard. >>> >>> "broken" is a non-variadic function and will return the value in >>> floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be >>> doing sibcall here. >>> >>> Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. >>> Is this OK if no issues with the testing? >> >> Hi Kugan, >> >> It looks like this patch should work, but I think this is an overly >> conservative fix, as it prevents all sibcalls for hardfloat targets. >> It would be better if only variadic sibcalls were prevented on >> hardfloat. You can check for variadic calls by checking the >> function_type in the call expression (exp) using stdarg_p(). >> >> As an example to show how to test for variadic function calls, this is >> how to test it in gdb: >> >> (gdb) b arm_function_ok_for_sibcall >> Breakpoint 1 at 0xdae59c: file >> /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c, line 6634. >> (gdb) r >> <snip>... >> Breakpoint 1, arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (decl=0x0, exp=0x7ffff6104ce8) >> at /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:6634 >> 6634 if (cfun->machine->sibcall_blocked) >> (gdb) print debug_tree(exp) >> <call_expr 0x7ffff6104ce8 >> type <real_type 0x7ffff62835e8 double sizes-gimplified DF >> size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf18 constant 64> >> unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf30 constant 8> >> align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff62835e8 >> precision 64 >> pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff62837e0>> >> side-effects addressable >> fn <ssa_name 0x7ffff6275708 >> type <pointer_type 0x7ffff60e9540 type <function_type 0x7ffff60e9348> >> <snip>... >> (gdb) print stdarg_p((tree)0x7ffff60e9348) <--- from function_type ^^^^^ >> $2 = true >> > > How about: A run time testcase and a changelog would also be needed. > > diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > index a379121..2376d66 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > @@ -6681,6 +6681,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) > register. */ > rtx a, b; > > + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ > + if (!decl > + && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))) > + && (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp)))) > + == FUNCTION_TYPE)) > + decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); > + If decl is null it's guaranteed to be an indirect function call - drop the additional checks in the if clause. > a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); > b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), > cfun->decl, false); > Please resubmit with a testcase, Changelog and after testing. regards Ramana ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-17 10:05 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2015-11-17 19:56 ` Kugan 2015-11-18 0:32 ` Kugan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2015-11-17 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ramana Radhakrishnan, Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3864 bytes --] On 17/11/15 21:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi Kugan, > > It does look like an issue. > > Please open a bug report. > >> >> >> On 17/11/15 12:00, Charles Baylis wrote: >>> On 16 November 2015 at 22:24, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Please note that we have a sibcall from "broken" to "indirect". >>>> >>>> "direct" is variadic function so it is conforming to AAPCS base standard. >>>> >>>> "broken" is a non-variadic function and will return the value in >>>> floating point register for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT. Thus we should not be >>>> doing sibcall here. >>>> >>>> Attached patch fixes this. Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. >>>> Is this OK if no issues with the testing? >>> >>> Hi Kugan, >>> >>> It looks like this patch should work, but I think this is an overly >>> conservative fix, as it prevents all sibcalls for hardfloat targets. >>> It would be better if only variadic sibcalls were prevented on >>> hardfloat. You can check for variadic calls by checking the >>> function_type in the call expression (exp) using stdarg_p(). >>> >>> As an example to show how to test for variadic function calls, this is >>> how to test it in gdb: >>> >>> (gdb) b arm_function_ok_for_sibcall >>> Breakpoint 1 at 0xdae59c: file >>> /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c, line 6634. >>> (gdb) r >>> <snip>... >>> Breakpoint 1, arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (decl=0x0, exp=0x7ffff6104ce8) >>> at /home/cbaylis/srcarea/gcc/gcc-git/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:6634 >>> 6634 if (cfun->machine->sibcall_blocked) >>> (gdb) print debug_tree(exp) >>> <call_expr 0x7ffff6104ce8 >>> type <real_type 0x7ffff62835e8 double sizes-gimplified DF >>> size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf18 constant 64> >>> unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff626cf30 constant 8> >>> align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff62835e8 >>> precision 64 >>> pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff62837e0>> >>> side-effects addressable >>> fn <ssa_name 0x7ffff6275708 >>> type <pointer_type 0x7ffff60e9540 type <function_type 0x7ffff60e9348> >>> <snip>... >>> (gdb) print stdarg_p((tree)0x7ffff60e9348) <--- from function_type ^^^^^ >>> $2 = true >>> >> >> How about: > > > > A run time testcase and a changelog would also be needed. > >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> index a379121..2376d66 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> @@ -6681,6 +6681,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) >> register. */ >> rtx a, b; >> >> + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ >> + if (!decl >> + && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))) >> + && (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp)))) >> + == FUNCTION_TYPE)) >> + decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); >> + > > If decl is null it's guaranteed to be an indirect function call - drop the additional checks in the if clause. > > >> a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); >> b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), >> cfun->decl, false); >> > > > Please resubmit with a testcase, Changelog and after testing. Hi Ramana, Thanks for the review. I have opened a gcc bug-report for this. I tested the attached patch for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no new regressions. Is this OK? Thanks, Kugan gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> PR target/68390 * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type for indirect function call. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> PR target/68390 * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. [-- Attachment #2: p.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --] diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index a379121..a4509f4 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -6681,6 +6681,10 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) register. */ rtx a, b; + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ + if (!decl) + decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), cfun->decl, false); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c index e69de29..86f07fe 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +/* { dg-do run } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */ + +__attribute__ ((noinline)) +double direct(int x, ...) +{ + return x*x; +} + +__attribute__ ((noinline)) +double broken(double (*indirect)(int x, ...), int v) +{ + return indirect(v); +} + +int main () +{ + double d1, d2; + int i = 2; + d1 = broken (direct, i); + if (d1 != i*i) + { + __builtin_abort (); + } + return 0; +} + diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/variadic_sibcall.c deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29..0000000 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-17 19:56 ` Kugan @ 2015-11-18 0:32 ` Kugan 2015-11-18 9:19 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2015-11-18 0:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ramana Radhakrishnan, Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Kyrill Tkachov [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1251 bytes --] > Hi Ramana, > > Thanks for the review. I have opened a gcc bug-report for this. I tested > the attached patch for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and > arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no new regressions. Is this OK? > > > Thanks, > Kugan > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > PR target/68390 > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type > for indirect function call. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > PR target/68390 > * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. > > Hi Ramana, With further testing on bare-metal, I found that for the following decl has to be null for indirect functions. if (TARGET_AAPCS_BASED && arm_abi == ARM_ABI_AAPCS && decl && DECL_WEAK (decl)) return false; Here is the updated patch and ChangeLog. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, Kugan gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> PR target/68390 * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type for indirect function call. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> PR target/68390 * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. [-- Attachment #2: p.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1371 bytes --] diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index a379121..0dae7da 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -6680,8 +6680,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) a VFP register but then need to transfer it to a core register. */ rtx a, b; + tree fn_decl = decl; - a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ + if (!decl) + fn_decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); + + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), fn_decl, false); b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), cfun->decl, false); if (!rtx_equal_p (a, b)) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c index e69de29..86f07fe 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +/* { dg-do run } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */ + +__attribute__ ((noinline)) +double direct(int x, ...) +{ + return x*x; +} + +__attribute__ ((noinline)) +double broken(double (*indirect)(int x, ...), int v) +{ + return indirect(v); +} + +int main () +{ + double d1, d2; + int i = 2; + d1 = broken (direct, i); + if (d1 != i*i) + { + __builtin_abort (); + } + return 0; +} + ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-18 0:32 ` Kugan @ 2015-11-18 9:19 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2015-12-01 23:00 ` Kugan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2015-11-18 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kugan, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Kyrill Tkachov On 18/11/15 00:32, Kugan wrote: >> > Hi Ramana, >> > >> > Thanks for the review. I have opened a gcc bug-report for this. I tested >> > the attached patch for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and >> > arm-none-linux-gnueabi with no new regressions. Is this OK? >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Kugan >> > >> > gcc/ChangeLog: >> > >> > 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >> > >> > PR target/68390 >> > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type >> > for indirect function call. >> > >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> > >> > 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >> > >> > PR target/68390 >> > * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. >> > >> > > Hi Ramana, > > With further testing on bare-metal, I found that for the following decl > has to be null for indirect functions. > > if (TARGET_AAPCS_BASED > && arm_abi == ARM_ABI_AAPCS > && decl > && DECL_WEAK (decl)) > return false; Ok .. yes that's right. > > Here is the updated patch and ChangeLog. Sorry for the noise. > > Thanks, > Kugan > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > PR target/68390 > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type > for indirect function call. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > > PR target/68390 > * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. > s/PR/pr in the test name and put this in gcc.c-torture/execute instead - there is nothing ARM specific about the test. Tests in gcc.target/arm should really only be architecture specific. This isn't. > > > > p.txt > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > index a379121..0dae7da 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > @@ -6680,8 +6680,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) > a VFP register but then need to transfer it to a core > register. */ > rtx a, b; > + tree fn_decl = decl; Call it decl_or_type instead - it's really that ... > > - a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); > + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ > + if (!decl) > + fn_decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); > + This is probably just my mail client - but please watch out for indentation. > + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), fn_decl, false); > b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), > cfun->decl, false); > if (!rtx_equal_p (a, b)) OK with those changes. Ramana ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-11-18 9:19 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2015-12-01 23:00 ` Kugan 2016-01-25 21:54 ` Kugan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2015-12-01 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ramana Radhakrishnan, Charles Baylis Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw, Kyrill Tkachov >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >> >> PR target/68390 >> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type >> for indirect function call. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >> >> PR target/68390 >> * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. >> > > s/PR/pr in the test name and put this in gcc.c-torture/execute instead - there is nothing ARM specific about the test. Tests in gcc.target/arm should really only be architecture specific. This isn't. > >> >> >> >> p.txt >> >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> index a379121..0dae7da 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> @@ -6680,8 +6680,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) >> a VFP register but then need to transfer it to a core >> register. */ >> rtx a, b; >> + tree fn_decl = decl; > > Call it decl_or_type instead - it's really that ... > >> >> - a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); >> + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ >> + if (!decl) >> + fn_decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); >> + > > This is probably just my mail client - but please watch out for indentation. > >> + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), fn_decl, false); >> b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), >> cfun->decl, false); >> if (!rtx_equal_p (a, b)) > > > OK with those changes. > > Ramana > Hi Ramana, This issue also remains in 4.9 and 5.0 branches. Is this OK to backport to the release branches. Thanks, Kugan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI 2015-12-01 23:00 ` Kugan @ 2016-01-25 21:54 ` Kugan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Kugan @ 2016-01-25 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ramana Radhakrishnan, Charles Baylis, Kyrill Tkachov Cc: gcc-patches, Richard Earnshaw This issue also remains in 4.9 and 5.0 branches. Is this OK to backport to the release branches. Thanks, Kugan On 02/12/15 10:00, Kugan wrote: > >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >>> >>> PR target/68390 >>> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type >>> for indirect function call. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >>> >>> PR target/68390 >>> * gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test. >>> >> >> s/PR/pr in the test name and put this in gcc.c-torture/execute instead - there is nothing ARM specific about the test. Tests in gcc.target/arm should really only be architecture specific. This isn't. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> p.txt >>> >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >>> index a379121..0dae7da 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >>> @@ -6680,8 +6680,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp) >>> a VFP register but then need to transfer it to a core >>> register. */ >>> rtx a, b; >>> + tree fn_decl = decl; >> >> Call it decl_or_type instead - it's really that ... >> >>> >>> - a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false); >>> + /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type. */ >>> + if (!decl) >>> + fn_decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp))); >>> + >> >> This is probably just my mail client - but please watch out for indentation. >> >>> + a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), fn_decl, false); >>> b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)), >>> cfun->decl, false); >>> if (!rtx_equal_p (a, b)) >> >> >> OK with those changes. >> >> Ramana >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-25 21:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-11-16 22:25 Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI Kugan 2015-11-17 1:00 ` Charles Baylis 2015-11-17 1:27 ` Kugan 2015-11-17 2:38 ` Kugan 2015-11-17 10:05 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2015-11-17 19:56 ` Kugan 2015-11-18 0:32 ` Kugan 2015-11-18 9:19 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2015-12-01 23:00 ` Kugan 2016-01-25 21:54 ` Kugan
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).