From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-492931-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 93893 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2018 21:43:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 93876 invoked by uid 89); 20 Dec 2018 21:43:10 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-ot1-f66.google.com
Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-ot1-f66.google.com) (209.85.210.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 21:43:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id 32so3306197ota.12        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:43:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=36LMze8fS+QQCG9vFODfVL5j4eAYwwB4TS8t3/W72dw=;        b=nIpdU1T6Ps4k9XI40Xy0JGsE07+3xTDN81ZPiKvQPyup8SGwknGfevlLAOqvYiZ/KD         V0QqcOi+E7+VdhWX8KIGMIvzG4W5PfzcZYQEMgXZWP+p82F7Qq3bCfh5f4LIVrSQ2b9/         7sZStBh3zlE7aIVNnzGl3dfXMXCZmDMbs/aP7E9YCzCGMm+cfVTFVoCMc/nDOd04qBlJ         BED0HvJiPmLXGcKazpgqtn6CJVUTWy6OY/gQ9Zk7S7mLYHVIbUvk79480mDpP03hpwF6         IedtFDmPwasa/hShvj16YqK9eniQMiMpRuZ4wZlKkcIG11t1q7eH5kabAFlYBExr9A5K         xVIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMe9rOohUOR+eta2gvwNxbjMR1y=P=vA3+Sniaj_tS03qamj6g@mail.gmail.com> <d3a6bf60-4c66-54d7-b159-a6f6b5ecfdbe@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOq67grqBtdDL7YQdAwGp+9KAqiuQbs_gyiXdemNoX19Ng@mail.gmail.com> <24f8a201-bb3e-3acb-b679-570a8796358d@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOo1hsE9pMC5DV1t0LJ0xkKhdX7TACf1_pZpYmxaNgZMPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2JrHbXA5QNuXqyRzccnzwf9iduSZBJBw8A_fOSMHMPaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOq93B0tO_SkJ=aPP4rYfDG8pf4+_-7WhKy60mn5PCrEZw@mail.gmail.com> <bd7ff807-0918-9d66-8043-969d4d2ff8b0@redhat.com> <20181218141051.GA3461@gmail.com> <14946d45-0983-12ad-3f93-99da07b3886e@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOq-_k1ntkAxbDCKY=OdFrzdS+Z6b_MZdVOwWRTFCP4_Mg@mail.gmail.com> <7f0ae96e-87b8-5db9-97b5-90094c4dace7@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOq+Smwo+LWTE=ygPH0kMOCdTYNh9FOHWoWSjJv4g=ccNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOomWf5=+_mtgqNdTwq2V3uSgStcraLX57Nc-uLJsyvO=A@mail.gmail.com> <63472b60-a401-5c43-de38-87187cdc95c5@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOqyBw4ZeE6-UQExRe0mEx+PrUCn3oDWZz2Dn5Lv01h-uA@mail.gmail.com> <a4292d4c-8e9c-5780-9a52-63b9b1630beb@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <a4292d4c-8e9c-5780-9a52-63b9b1630beb@redhat.com>
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 21:47:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqLiivddn1ZVDKc2McxnSyt_DJGbTtJpZTNrSKz6_Xz=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: V10 [PATCH] C/C++: Add -Waddress-of-packed-member
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, 	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>, 	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg01505.txt.bz2

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:28 PM Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/20/18 2:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:28 AM Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/19/18 12:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> +  while (handled_component_p (rhs))
> >>> +    {
> >>> +      if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == COMPONENT_REF)
> >>> +     break;
> >>> +      rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> >>> +    }
> >>> +
> >>> +  if (TREE_CODE (rhs) != COMPONENT_REF)
> >>> +    return NULL_TREE;
> >>> +
> >>> +  object = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> >>> +  field = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 1);
> >>> +
> >>> +  tree context = check_alignment_of_packed_member (type, field);
> >>> +  if (context)
> >>> +    return context;
> >>
> >> All the above looks unnecessary; it will be handled by the loop below.
> >>
> >>> +  /* Check alignment of the object.  */
> >>> +  while (handled_component_p (object))
> >>> +    {
> >>> +      if (TREE_CODE (object) == COMPONENT_REF)
> >>> +     {
> >>> +       do
> >>> +         {
> >>> +           field = TREE_OPERAND (object, 1);
> >>> +           context = check_alignment_of_packed_member (type, field);
> >>> +           if (context)
> >>> +             return context;
> >>> +           object = TREE_OPERAND (object, 0);
> >>> +         }
> >>> +       while (TREE_CODE (object) == COMPONENT_REF);
> >>
> >> This inner loop also seems unnecessary.
> >>
> >>> +     }
> >>> +      else
> >>> +     object = TREE_OPERAND (object, 0);
> >>> +    }
> >>
> >> Jason
> >
> > I changed it to
> >
> > static tree
> > check_address_of_packed_member (tree type, tree rhs)
> > {
> >    if (INDIRECT_REF_P (rhs))
> >      rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> >
> >    if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == ADDR_EXPR)
> >      rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> >
> >    tree context = NULL_TREE;
> >
> >    /* Check alignment of the object.  */
> >    while (handled_component_p (rhs))
> >      {
> >        if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == COMPONENT_REF)
> >          {
> >            tree field = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 1);
> >            context = check_alignment_of_packed_member (type, field);
> >            if (context)
> >              break;
> >          }
> >        rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> >      }
> >
> >    return context;
> > }
> >
> > Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk?
>
> OK.
>

Checked in.  Thanks for everyone, especially Jason.

-- 
H.J.