* [PATCH] Fix a -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx ICE (PR target/65523)
@ 2015-03-23 19:55 Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-23 20:01 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2015-03-23 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener, Ilya Enkovich; +Cc: gcc-patches
Hi!
On the following testcase we ICE, because we don't verify we have the
ERF_RETURNS_ARG argument, on non-verified builtins that is possible.
Other uses of ERF_RETURNS_ARG seem to verify it.
Also, there was an unneeded extra gimple_call_return_flags call,
the condition has already checked that ERF_RETURNS_ARG flag is set.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2015-03-23 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR target/65523
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_build_returned_bound): Ignore
ERF_RETURNS_ARG calls if they have fewer than needed arguments.
* gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c: New test.
--- gcc/tree-chkp.c.jj 2015-03-09 08:05:05.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-chkp.c 2015-03-23 14:37:52.469289930 +0100
@@ -2153,6 +2153,7 @@ chkp_build_returned_bound (gcall *call)
tree bounds;
gimple stmt;
tree fndecl = gimple_call_fndecl (call);
+ unsigned int retflags;
/* To avoid fixing alloca expands in targets we handle
it separately. */
@@ -2196,12 +2197,11 @@ chkp_build_returned_bound (gcall *call)
}
/* Do not use retbnd when returned bounds are equal to some
of passed bounds. */
- else if (gimple_call_return_flags (call) & ERF_RETURNS_ARG)
+ else if (((retflags = gimple_call_return_flags (call)) & ERF_RETURNS_ARG)
+ && (retflags & ERF_RETURN_ARG_MASK) < gimple_call_num_args (call))
{
gimple_stmt_iterator iter = gsi_for_stmt (call);
- unsigned int retarg = 0, argno;
- if (gimple_call_return_flags (call) & ERF_RETURNS_ARG)
- retarg = gimple_call_return_flags (call) & ERF_RETURN_ARG_MASK;
+ unsigned int retarg = retflags & ERF_RETURN_ARG_MASK, argno;
if (gimple_call_with_bounds_p (call))
{
for (argno = 0; argno < gimple_call_num_args (call); argno++)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c.jj 2015-03-23 14:44:36.977729292 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c 2015-03-23 14:45:17.518071777 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* PR target/65523 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx" } */
+
+void *memmove ();
+
+void *
+bar ()
+{
+ return memmove ();
+}
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Fix a -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx ICE (PR target/65523)
2015-03-23 19:55 [PATCH] Fix a -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx ICE (PR target/65523) Jakub Jelinek
@ 2015-03-23 20:01 ` Richard Biener
2015-04-23 18:12 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2015-03-23 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek, Ilya Enkovich; +Cc: gcc-patches
On March 23, 2015 8:54:54 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On the following testcase we ICE, because we don't verify we have the
>ERF_RETURNS_ARG argument, on non-verified builtins that is possible.
>Other uses of ERF_RETURNS_ARG seem to verify it.
>Also, there was an unneeded extra gimple_call_return_flags call,
>the condition has already checked that ERF_RETURNS_ARG flag is set.
>
>Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
>2015-03-23 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
>
> PR target/65523
> * tree-chkp.c (chkp_build_returned_bound): Ignore
> ERF_RETURNS_ARG calls if they have fewer than needed arguments.
>
> * gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c: New test.
>
>--- gcc/tree-chkp.c.jj 2015-03-09 08:05:05.000000000 +0100
>+++ gcc/tree-chkp.c 2015-03-23 14:37:52.469289930 +0100
>@@ -2153,6 +2153,7 @@ chkp_build_returned_bound (gcall *call)
> tree bounds;
> gimple stmt;
> tree fndecl = gimple_call_fndecl (call);
>+ unsigned int retflags;
>
> /* To avoid fixing alloca expands in targets we handle
> it separately. */
>@@ -2196,12 +2197,11 @@ chkp_build_returned_bound (gcall *call)
> }
> /* Do not use retbnd when returned bounds are equal to some
> of passed bounds. */
>- else if (gimple_call_return_flags (call) & ERF_RETURNS_ARG)
>+ else if (((retflags = gimple_call_return_flags (call)) &
>ERF_RETURNS_ARG)
>+ && (retflags & ERF_RETURN_ARG_MASK) < gimple_call_num_args (call))
> {
> gimple_stmt_iterator iter = gsi_for_stmt (call);
>- unsigned int retarg = 0, argno;
>- if (gimple_call_return_flags (call) & ERF_RETURNS_ARG)
>- retarg = gimple_call_return_flags (call) & ERF_RETURN_ARG_MASK;
>+ unsigned int retarg = retflags & ERF_RETURN_ARG_MASK, argno;
> if (gimple_call_with_bounds_p (call))
> {
> for (argno = 0; argno < gimple_call_num_args (call); argno++)
>--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c.jj 2015-03-23
>14:44:36.977729292 +0100
>+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c 2015-03-23
>14:45:17.518071777 +0100
>@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>+/* PR target/65523 */
>+/* { dg-do compile } */
>+/* { dg-options "-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx" } */
>+
>+void *memmove ();
>+
>+void *
>+bar ()
>+{
>+ return memmove ();
>+}
>
> Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Fix a -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx ICE (PR target/65523)
2015-03-23 20:01 ` Richard Biener
@ 2015-04-23 18:12 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2015-04-23 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, Ilya Enkovich, GCC Patches
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> On March 23, 2015 8:54:54 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>On the following testcase we ICE, because we don't verify we have the
>>ERF_RETURNS_ARG argument, on non-verified builtins that is possible.
>>Other uses of ERF_RETURNS_ARG seem to verify it.
>>Also, there was an unneeded extra gimple_call_return_flags call,
>>the condition has already checked that ERF_RETURNS_ARG flag is set.
>>
>>Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> OK.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>>2015-03-23 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
>>
>> PR target/65523
>> * tree-chkp.c (chkp_build_returned_bound): Ignore
>> ERF_RETURNS_ARG calls if they have fewer than needed arguments.
>>
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c: New test.
>>
MPX doesn't support x32. I checked in this patch to skip it
for x32.
--
H.J.
---
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- ChangeLog (revision 222381)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2015-04-23 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
+
+ * gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c: Skip x32.
+
2015-04-23 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
* gcc.target/arm/neon/pr51534.c: Update vcg* scan-assembly patterns
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c (revision 222381)
+++ gcc.target/i386/pr65523.c (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/* PR target/65523 */
-/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-do compile { target { ! x32 } } } */
/* { dg-options "-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx" } */
void *memmove ();
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-04-23 18:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-03-23 19:55 [PATCH] Fix a -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx ICE (PR target/65523) Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-23 20:01 ` Richard Biener
2015-04-23 18:12 ` H.J. Lu
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).