From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74282 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2019 15:05:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 74274 invoked by uid 89); 30 Aug 2019 15:05:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mail-lj1-f195.google.com Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (HELO mail-lj1-f195.google.com) (209.85.208.195) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:05:22 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id l14so6808729lje.2 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:05:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jmQDZb8ObCnbf8U6IPe/+kQCyfbhDfIqRLgabp9fzrs=; b=J9s4HxMsXyMuzBzqXQNjst2j6hBCF9dcerfEMPn4heWEQIlN4Up7UXA2j1Go+03pJV 40Xj0rf5V+Hmx1avvN2Pn+LOS+7OztQP3xZO+xZejA3hntUGaJ67TJ5TwVeHELiI7Hmx 0342ZbwtOHyixg27LE0t2obLEs1yoEue1cdBqs4XjF6+amVHHEk6fPH3gySbY8R4rHQb LLgAhJlEnmqCtP33c2pnSYfg5kaMe4wkZ2aYk+gt9zf0fWTPbtqvKBmqs4LCB4lXFOG5 EWMPYjvApaLYVhVBFs+Jlcac1bIKW45uywddA5dVOsaW9yp/aJNQJdS7Z/Z8xiosT9V5 JzTA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <52c7ef9f-9fa2-6126-abf3-dc48c1a2d580@foss.arm.com> <86a19366-e1ee-87a4-9c5b-2fb1d32782a0@foss.arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Christophe Lyon Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Sanitizing the middle-end interface to the back-end for strict alignment To: Bernd Edlinger Cc: Kyrill Tkachov , Richard Biener , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Earnshaw , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Eric Botcazou , Jeff Law , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg02091.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 23:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > On 8/29/19 11:08 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:58, Kyrill Tkachov > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Bernd, > >> > >> On 8/28/19 10:36 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >>> On 8/28/19 2:07 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> This patch causes an ICE when building libgcc's unwind-arm.o > >>>> when configuring GCC: > >>>> --target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-mode thumb --with-cpu > >>>> cortex-a15 --with-fpu neon-vfpv4: > >>>> > >>>> The build works for the same target, but --with-mode arm --with-cpu > >>>> cortex a9 --with-fpu vfp > >>>> > >>>> In file included from > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/config/arm/unwind-arm.c:144: > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-arm-common.inc: > >>>> In function 'get_eit_entry': > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-arm-common.inc:245:29: > >>>> warning: cast discards 'const' qualifier from pointer target type > >>>> [-Wcast-qual] > >>>> 245 | ucbp->pr_cache.ehtp = (_Unwind_EHT_Header *)&eitp->content; > >>>> | ^ > >>>> during RTL pass: expand > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-arm-common.inc: > >>>> In function 'unwind_phase2_forced': > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/libgcc/unwind-arm-common.inc:319:18: > >>>> internal compiler error: in gen_movdi, at config/arm/arm.md:5235 > >>>> 319 | saved_vrs.core = entry_vrs->core; > >>>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> 0x126530f gen_movdi(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/arm/arm.md:5235 > >>>> 0x896d92 insn_gen_fn::operator()(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) const > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/recog.h:318 > >>>> 0x896d92 emit_move_insn_1(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:3694 > >>>> 0x897083 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:3790 > >>>> 0xfc25d6 gen_cpymem_ldrd_strd(rtx_def**) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:14582 > >>>> 0x126a1f1 gen_cpymemqi(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/arm/arm.md:6688 > >>>> 0xb0bc08 maybe_expand_insn(insn_code, unsigned int, expand_operand*) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/optabs.c:7440 > >>>> 0x89ba1e emit_block_move_via_cpymem > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:1808 > >>>> 0x89ba1e emit_block_move_hints(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, > >>>> block_op_methods, unsigned int, long, unsigned long, unsigned long, > >>>> unsigned long, bool, bool*) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:1627 > >>>> 0x89c383 emit_block_move(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, block_op_methods) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:1667 > >>>> 0x89fb4e store_expr(tree_node*, rtx_def*, int, bool, bool) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:5845 > >>>> 0x88c1f9 store_field > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:7149 > >>>> 0x8a0c22 expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool) > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/expr.c:5304 > >>>> 0x761964 expand_gimple_stmt_1 > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3779 > >>>> 0x761964 expand_gimple_stmt > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3875 > >>>> 0x768583 expand_gimple_basic_block > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5915 > >>>> 0x76abc6 execute > >>>> /tmp/6852788_4.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6538 > >>>> > >>>> Christophe > >>>> > >>> Okay, sorry for the breakage. > >>> > >>> What is happening in gen_cpymem_ldrd_strd is of course against the rules: > >>> > >>> It uses emit_move_insn on only 4-byte aligned DI-mode memory operands. > >>> > >>> I have a patch for this, which is able to fix the libgcc build on a cross, but have no > >>> possibility to bootstrap the affected target. > >>> > >>> Could you please help? > >> > >> Well it's good that the sanitisation is catching the bugs! > >> > > Yes, more than expected, though ;) > > >> Bootstrapping this patch I get another assert with the backtrace: > > > > Thanks for the additional testing, Kyrill! > > > > FWIW, my original report was with a failure to just build GCC for > > cortex-a15. I later got the reports of testing cross-toolchains, and > > saw other problems on cortex-a9 for instance. > > But I guess, you have noticed them with your bootstrap? > > on arm-linux-gnueabi > > gcc.target/arm/aapcs/align4.c (internal compiler error) > > gcc.target/arm/aapcs/align_rec4.c (internal compiler error) > > > > This appears to be yet unknown middle-end bug (not fixed by current patch) > > $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc align4.c > during RTL pass: expand > In file included from align4.c:22: > align4.c: In function 'testfunc': > abitest.h:73:42: internal compiler error: in gen_movv2si, at config/arm/vec-common.md:30 > 73 | #define LAST_ARG(type,val,offset) { type __x = val; if (memcmp(&__x, stack+offset, sizeof(type)) != 0) abort(); } > | ^~~ > abitest.h:74:30: note: in expansion of macro 'LAST_ARG' > 74 | #define ARG(type,val,offset) LAST_ARG(type, val, offset) > | ^~~~~~~~ > align4.c:26:3: note: in expansion of macro 'ARG' > 26 | ARG (unalignedvec, a, R2) > | ^~~ > 0x7bb33c gen_movv2si(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md:30 > 0xa4a807 insn_gen_fn::operator()(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) const > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/recog.h:318 > 0xa4a807 emit_move_insn_1(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:3694 > 0xa4ab94 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:3790 > 0xa522bf store_expr(tree_node*, rtx_def*, int, bool, bool) > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:5855 > 0xa52bfd expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool) > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:5441 > 0xa52bfd expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool) > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/expr.c:4982 > 0x934adf expand_gimple_stmt_1 > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3777 > 0x934adf expand_gimple_stmt > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3875 > 0x93a451 expand_gimple_basic_block > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5915 > 0x93c1b6 execute > ../../gcc-trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6538 > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. > See for instructions. > > > > (with -march=armv5t: gcc.dg/pr83930.c (internal compiler error)) > > > > possibly fixed by latest patch. > > > on arm-linux-gnueabihf, in addition to align4/align_rec4: > > --with-cpu cortex-a9 > > --with-fpu neon-fp16 > > gcc.c-torture/execute/pr37573.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > > -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (internal > > compiler error) > > gcc.c-torture/execute/pr37573.c -O3 -g (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/fast-math-pr35982.c (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/pr55857-1.c (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/pr55857-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/pr55857-2.c (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/pr55857-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/pr57558-2.c (internal compiler error) > > gcc.dg/vect/pr57558-2.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal compiler error) > > > > and even more with other configs > > (http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/274986/report-build-info.html > > may help) > > > > Christophe > > > >> > >> $BUILD/arm-none-linux-gnueabihf/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/concurrence.h: > >> In function '(static initializers for > >> $SRC/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc)': > >> $BUILD/arm-none-linux-gnueabihf/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/concurrence.h:129:5: > >> internal compiler error: in gen_movv8qi, at config/arm/vec-common.md:29 > >> 129 | { > >> | ^ > >> 0x14155cb gen_movv8qi(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >> $SRC/gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md:29 > >> 0x96bb89 insn_gen_fn::operator()(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) const > >> $SRC/gcc/recog.h:318 > >> 0x94bc95 emit_move_insn_1(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:3694 > >> 0x94c05b emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:3790 > >> 0x10d5ee5 arm_block_set_aligned_vect > >> $SRC/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:30204 > >> 0x10d6b37 arm_block_set_vect > >> $SRC/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:30428 > >> 0x10d6caf arm_gen_setmem(rtx_def**) > >> $SRC/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:30458 > >> 0x140d7ed gen_setmemsi(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >> $SRC/gcc/config/arm/arm.md:6687 > >> 0xbf0e87 insn_gen_fn::operator()(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*) > >> const > >> $SRC/gcc/recog.h:320 > >> 0xbf0999 maybe_gen_insn(insn_code, unsigned int, expand_operand*) > >> $SRC/gcc/optabs.c:7409 > >> 0xbf0b87 maybe_expand_insn(insn_code, unsigned int, expand_operand*) > >> $SRC/gcc/optabs.c:7440 > >> 0x94a709 set_storage_via_setmem(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, rtx_def*, unsigned > >> int, unsigned int, long long, unsigned long long, unsigned long long, > >> unsigned long long) > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:3168 > >> 0x94a059 clear_storage_hints(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, block_op_methods, > >> unsigned int, long long, unsigned long long, unsigned long long, > >> unsigned long long) > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:3037 > >> 0x94a137 clear_storage(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, block_op_methods) > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:3058 > >> 0x9537c5 store_constructor > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:6333 > >> 0x957227 store_field > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:7145 > >> 0x94fde1 expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool) > >> $SRC/gcc/expr.c:5301 > >> 0x815e25 expand_gimple_stmt_1 > >> $SRC/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3777 > >> 0x81611d expand_gimple_stmt > >> $SRC/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3875 > >> 0x81cd61 expand_gimple_basic_block > >> $SRC/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5915 > >> > >> Looks to me like arm_gen_setmem needs similar fixes to gen_cpymem_ldrd_strd? > >> > > Yes, indeed, see attached patch. > > This seems to fix the bootstrap, but at least one other error remains, > however I think those do hopefully not break the boot-strap and can be > fixed with follow-up patches. > > Christophe can you please track the remaining regressions, that would be > very helpful. > > Attached is an updated patch version which should un-break the bootstrap issues. > Is it OK for trunk? > I've run validations comparing r274985 (rev before your 1st patch) with r274986 and the patch from this thread. I think you've committed it while the validations were running. I've filed several PR for the different ICEs and regressions I've noticed: 91612 91613 61614 91615 HTH Thanks, Christophe > > Thanks > Bernd.