public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Nick Alcock via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch][version 6] add -ftrivial-auto-var-init and variable attribute "uninitialized" to gcc
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:16:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6FD42B95-F73D-4B75-B83A-BAC4925B1714@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2108101720010.11781@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>

Hi, Richard,

> On Aug 10, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Especially in the VLA case but likely also in general (though unlikely
>>> since usually the receiver of initializations are simple enough).  I'd
>>> expect the VLA case end up as
>>> 
>>> *ptr_to_decl = .DEFERRED_INIT (...);
>>> 
>>> where *ptr_to_decl is the DECL_VALUE_EXPR of the decl.
>> 
>> So, for the following small testing case:
>> 
>> ====
>> extern void bar (int);
>> 
>> void foo(int n)
>> {
>>  int arr[n];
>>  bar (arr[2]);
>>  return;
>> }
>> =====
>> 
>> If I compile it with -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero -fdump-tree-gimple -S -o auto-init-11.s -fdump-rtl-expand, the *.gimple dump is:
>> 
>> =====
>> void foo (int n)
>> {
>>  int n.0;
>>  sizetype D.1950;
>>  bitsizetype D.1951;
>>  sizetype D.1952;
>>  bitsizetype D.1953;
>>  sizetype D.1954;
>>  int[0:D.1950] * arr.1;
>>  void * saved_stack.2;
>>  int arr[0:D.1950] [value-expr: *arr.1];
>> 
>>  saved_stack.2 = __builtin_stack_save ();
>>  try
>>    {
>>      n.0 = n;
>>      _1 = (long int) n.0;
>>      _2 = _1 + -1;
>>      _3 = (sizetype) _2;
>>      D.1950 = _3;
>>      _4 = (sizetype) n.0;
>>      _5 = (bitsizetype) _4;
>>      _6 = _5 * 32;
>>      D.1951 = _6;
>>      _7 = (sizetype) n.0;
>>      _8 = _7 * 4;
>>      D.1952 = _8;
>>      _9 = (sizetype) n.0;
>>      _10 = (bitsizetype) _9;
>>      _11 = _10 * 32;
>>      D.1953 = _11;
>>      _12 = (sizetype) n.0;
>>      _13 = _12 * 4;
>>      D.1954 = _13;
>>      arr.1 = __builtin_alloca_with_align (D.1954, 32);
>>      arr = .DEFERRED_INIT (D.1952, 2, 1);
>>      _14 = (*arr.1)[2];
>>      bar (_14);
>>      return;
>>    }
>>  finally
>>    {
>>      __builtin_stack_restore (saved_stack.2);
>>    }
>> }
>> 
>> ====
>> 
>> You think that the above .DEFEERED_INIT is not correct?
>> It should be:
>> 
>> *arr.1 = .DEFERRED_INIT (D.1952. 2, 1);
>> 
>> ?
> 
> Yes.
> 

I updated gimplify.c for VLA and now it emits the call to .DEFERRED_INIT as:

      arr.1 = __builtin_alloca_with_align (D.1954, 32);
      *arr.1 = .DEFERRED_INIT (D.1952, 2, 1);

However, this call triggered the assertion failure in verify_gimple_call of tree-cfg.c because the LHS is not a valid LHS. 
Then I modify tree-cfg.c as:

diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.c b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
index 330eb7dd89bf..180d4f1f9e32 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
@@ -3375,7 +3375,11 @@ verify_gimple_call (gcall *stmt)
      }
 
   tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (stmt);
+  /* For .DEFERRED_INIT call, the LHS might be an indirection of
+     a pointer for the VLA variable, which is not a valid LHS of
+     a gimple call, we ignore the asssertion on this.  */ 
   if (lhs
+      && (!gimple_call_internal_p (stmt, IFN_DEFERRED_INIT))
       && (!is_gimple_reg (lhs)
          && (!is_gimple_lvalue (lhs)
              || verify_types_in_gimple_reference

The assertion failure in tree-cfg.c got resolved, but I got another assertion failure in operands_scanner::get_expr_operands (tree *expr_p, int flags), line 945:

 939   /* If we get here, something has gone wrong.  */
 940   if (flag_checking)
 941     {
 942       fprintf (stderr, "unhandled expression in get_expr_operands():\n");
 943       debug_tree (expr);
 944       fputs ("\n", stderr);
 945       gcc_unreachable ();
 946     }

Looks like that  the gimple statement:
    *arr.1 = .DEFERRED_INIT (D.1952, 2, 1);

Is not valid.  i.e, the LHS should not be an indirection to a pointer. 

How to resolve this issue?

Thanks a lot for your help.

Qing
>>> 
>>>> What do you mean by “such” decl? A decl whole “DECL_VALUE_EXPR(DECL)” is valid?
>>> 
>>> A 'decl' that has a DECL_VALUE_EXPR should not appear in the IL, it should
>>> always be refered to as its DECL_VALUE_EXPR.
>> 
>> Okay.
> 
> I'm going to test
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c
> index ebf7eea3b04..15c73b6d6f4 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c
> @@ -799,10 +799,11 @@ operands_scanner::get_expr_operands (tree *expr_p, 
> int flags)
>                         flags | opf_not_non_addressable | 
> opf_address_taken);
>       return;
> 
> -    case SSA_NAME:
>     case VAR_DECL:
>     case PARM_DECL:
>     case RESULT_DECL:
> +      gcc_checking_assert (!DECL_HAS_VALUE_EXPR_P (expr));
> +    case SSA_NAME:
>     case STRING_CST:
>     case CONST_DECL:
>       if (!(flags & opf_address_taken))
> 
> which should pass on unmodified trunk (fingers crossing ;)), but
> it would likely trip on the current -ftrivial-auto-init patch.
> 
> The issue with the current IL is that nothing keeps arr.1 live
> and thus the allocation could be DCEd but the .DEFERRED_INIT
> call would remain, eventually being expanded to zero storage
> that isn't there.
> 
> Richard.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-08-10 20:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-27  3:26 Qing Zhao
2021-07-28 20:21 ` Kees Cook
2021-07-28 21:53   ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-09 14:09 ` Richard Biener
2021-08-09 16:38   ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-09 17:14     ` Richard Biener
2021-08-10  7:36     ` Richard Biener
2021-08-10 13:39       ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-10 14:16         ` Richard Biener
2021-08-10 15:02           ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-10 15:22             ` Richard Biener
2021-08-10 15:55               ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-10 20:16               ` Qing Zhao [this message]
2021-08-10 22:26                 ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11  7:02                   ` Richard Biener
2021-08-11 13:33                     ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 13:37                       ` Richard Biener
2021-08-11 13:54                         ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 13:58                           ` Richard Biener
2021-08-11 14:00                             ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 15:30                             ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 15:53                               ` Richard Biener
2021-08-11 16:22                                 ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 16:55                                   ` Richard Biener
2021-08-11 16:57                                     ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 20:30                                     ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 22:03                                       ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-16  7:12                                         ` Richard Biener
2021-08-16 14:48                                           ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-16 15:08                                             ` Richard Biener
2021-08-16 15:39                                               ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-16  7:11                                       ` Richard Biener
2021-08-16 16:48                                         ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-17 15:04                                           ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-17 20:40                                             ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-18  7:19                                               ` Richard Biener
2021-08-18 14:39                                                 ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11  9:02                   ` Richard Sandiford
2021-08-11 13:44                     ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-11 16:15                       ` Richard Sandiford
2021-08-11 16:29                         ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-12 19:24   ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-12 22:45     ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-16  7:40     ` Richard Biener
2021-08-16 15:45       ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-17  8:29         ` Richard Biener
2021-08-17 14:50           ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-17 16:08             ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-18  7:15               ` Richard Biener
2021-08-18 16:02                 ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-19  9:00                   ` Richard Biener
2021-08-19 13:54                     ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-20 14:52                       ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-23 13:55                       ` Richard Biener
2021-09-02 17:24                         ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-16 19:49       ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-17  8:43         ` Richard Biener
2021-08-17 14:03           ` Qing Zhao
2021-08-17 14:45             ` Richard Biener
2021-08-17 14:53               ` Qing Zhao

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=6FD42B95-F73D-4B75-B83A-BAC4925B1714@oracle.com \
    --to=qing.zhao@oracle.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=mjambor@suse.cz \
    --cc=rguenther@suse.de \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    /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).