From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ADF63858D38 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:06:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6ADF63858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 6ADF63858D38 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::131 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699607177; cv=none; b=Shd90m1ZP9auN0anqDeyLsBdEcOrxy6amSqc5KIEGyjr+97f1h9hv3KIWks6oAmvLp4t0WMG4afuNkoh6FnNMveLPkENMOlNmHpeo4hcgJAcvcRIA9ScXmOPpv10BZ5wIiYd78RF+PoYHrOkiKL7JZ+fxsuESJY6Bm89GiixRDg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699607177; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xXUe2v0oppP8TW9sq9qDUKIj+9+RQjt02NTdyKMZC4Y=; h=DKIM-Signature:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To; b=cArTKTM2D0u8001lGosW/Kn11WlIea3p7yUjeV0T4zJdW6V92Q3dABY2Koocy7rcygiPJGMVlU9cJ148pCSZmqFewzLebh/gXwyp2KztlYQwoXyYH7sZZvhEo/ySN6tSJygykh4fMF6FrdEL9ub/VbLo/sRrJCjh3zGKUBBQt+I= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-507a98517f3so2303639e87.0 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:06:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1699607174; x=1700211974; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=f7gcNM9RX9Nx+/1suVpcqfyviY3/8k7rSibD8xoULso=; b=ARVwV5ZQirDeKDpjKHbiES1ttnkn5bdyEImjzjmjmgFUC7IfjY8nT3JIIH7JAVEJYV 7D8sq8sARcdPzn4TEROTUNDc5rbOD1A8vOEjxcdwI90OabopVorOsMuadSTd0SI0QZ0N L36HoPdH8tuDd8kaCRhl82ddBGe4zQTmap/W3ZNrD7e7GGT1pzfgof1v9Dl0J6d8JSI6 tqQS6nARtVv3bb02eh2TegWhx2jqbK0rxM4UqAyXhgEtz6BHGCMJ4iQQNa9ZCk4hcoBm ++suwey7s3Twv80VXYgAYS+EXN07bVNbAiDnYH66lym1mMq73mGlSxiip40+pAlGWs5n ClVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699607174; x=1700211974; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=f7gcNM9RX9Nx+/1suVpcqfyviY3/8k7rSibD8xoULso=; b=i261TcuUGqG9I2tpZCmI+0xkZNGOlM1Dyp2NZ395zyNO1VNDKO3XwPey+IqDJBZxOB 6TEHM1s7iLsoUWHSPgLWQvnfNKC4VtvsltLdfa3x0aTpssmCekN6BUMowQ+AuvUSupgQ OQrYArUIZQke4c12lsn8cHgVHg4cnCEhyxRo6uWw+p11l87jpWh7SIcQHTWaSO37/oIH oCukr/9z2ShiWNcMGh3Ac+fgjnLFhFtWG/QXXuN+M+077uBhlMYE4sTW/PEeeAZG7R1r fBn0Apt/hzIyA4h/cgvjcwAh4hTuYxaA0tAWUh+9sPzVTXKZZ9Knm/fMs5KR3YUIqmmA NSjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwgDz0IQLmPngWCgVjespWR43XMYW6Y4nyWZ41I1FYyKhEhhM4L kt5U8kPpgnXnq8ncp+ztp4P3og5WjycFI+JQ63A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEWnFt1Oud6AkwWLDBxQ96gPZEphHnoefN8/ap8H1TbOZnzLIcw80xOVM9Nm0mJmRcedj9ENYpQDff7KAykn1s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:403:b0:507:9fc1:ca7e with SMTP id u3-20020a056512040300b005079fc1ca7emr3223167lfk.51.1699607173764; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:06:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, expand] Call misaligned memory reference in expand_builtin_return [PR112417] To: HAO CHEN GUI Cc: gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,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 List-Id: On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 8:52=E2=80=AFAM HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > > Hi Richard, > Thanks so much for your comments. > > =E5=9C=A8 2023/11/9 19:41, Richard Biener =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > > I'm not sure if the testcase is valid though? > > > > @defbuiltin{{void} __builtin_return (void *@var{result})} > > This built-in function returns the value described by @var{result} from > > the containing function. You should specify, for @var{result}, a value > > returned by @code{__builtin_apply}. > > @enddefbuiltin > > > > I don't see __builtin_apply being used here? > > The prototype of the test case is from "__objc_block_forward" in > libobjc/sendmsg.c. > > void *args, *res; > > args =3D __builtin_apply_args (); > res =3D __objc_forward (rcv, op, args); > if (res) > __builtin_return (res); > else > ... > > The __builtin_apply_args puts the return values on stack by the alignment= . > But the forward function can do anything and return a void* pointer. > IMHO the alignment might be broken. So I just simplified it to use a > void* pointer as the input argument of "__builtin_return" and skip > "__builtin_apply_args". But doesn't __objc_forward then break the contract between __builtin_apply_args and __builtin_return? That said, __builtin_return is a very special function, it's not supposed to deal with what you are fixing. At least I think so. IMHO the bug is in __objc_block_forward. Richard. > > Thanks > Gui Haochen