From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Received: from mail.ispras.ru (mail.ispras.ru [83.149.199.84])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193DC3858D39
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:20:16 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 193DC3858D39
Received: from [10.10.3.121] (unknown [10.10.3.121])
 by mail.ispras.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22B30407625E;
 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:20:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:20:11 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Alexey Nurmukhametov <nurmukhametov@ispras.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp
In-Reply-To: <4493B84A-DB6D-468B-86BF-DA5383D8CFE4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <794111d4-a64c-17e5-a4fe-f96e5182ee1@ispras.ru>
References: <d6ba28f2-3d88-ed2c-e81-ba16e84f31ca@ispras.ru>
 <4493B84A-DB6D-468B-86BF-DA5383D8CFE4@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) 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 <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:20:17 -0000

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, Richard Biener wrote:

> On December 13, 2021 3:25:47 PM GMT+01:00, Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> >Greetings!
> >
> >While testing our patch that reimplements -Wclobbered on GIMPLE we found
> >a case where tree-ssa-sink moves a statement to a basic block in front
> >of a setjmp call.
> >
> >I am confident that this is unintended and should be considered invalid
> >GIMPLE. 
> 
> Does CFG validation not catch this? That is, doesn't setjmp force the start of
> a new BB?

Oh, good point. There's stmt_start_bb_p which returns true for setjmp, but
gimple_verify_flow_info doesn't check it. I guess we can try adding that
and collect the fallout on bootstrap/regtest.

> I think sinking relies on dominance and post dominance here but post dominance
> may be too fragile with the abnormal cycles which are likely not backwards
> reachable from exit. 
> 
> That said, checking for abnormal preds is OK, I just want to make sure we
> detect the invalid CFG - do we? 

As above, no, otherwise it would have been caught much earlier than ICE'ing
our -Wclobbered patch :)

Thank you.
Alexander