From: "juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
To: Kito.cheng <kito.cheng@sifive.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
kito.cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com>, palmer <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
palmer <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
jeffreyalaw <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
"Robin Dapp" <rdapp.gcc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix incorrect code of touching inaccessible memory address
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 10:40:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1AF23939B68CD7F+20230524104018579295197@rivai.ai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALLt3ThamCMDbC=8Zu8WHXNbbw-0CZvBVO-KXC_h_b0rtnxiTw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3305 bytes --]
Thanks. I fix it by separating VL and normal operand.
V2 patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619356.html
Does it look more reasonable to you?
Just finished the building test && regression.
Thanks.
juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
From: Kito Cheng
Date: 2023-05-24 10:10
To: juzhe.zhong
CC: gcc-patches; kito.cheng; palmer; palmer; jeffreyalaw; rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix incorrect code of touching inaccessible memory address
I am a little hesitant about that, since I feel the vl and normal op
should be put in separately, otherwise the means of m_op_num is kind
of unclear, we have comments there but I think it's not ideal since it
is really context sensitive and hard to determine.
And I suspect gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]); is not too useful since it
might just be out of range access if we forgot to pass the vl
operands.
I am thinking we might need to introduce something like llvm::ArrayRef
to have a better sanity check, e.g. check the length of ops.
One possible solution is just using std::vector can achieve the same
purpose too, but come with more cost.
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:57 AM <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> wrote:
>
> From: Juzhe-Zhong <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
>
> For VLMAX situation, rtx len = ops[m_op_num] is incorrect since
> the last element the ops array should be ops[m_op_num - 1];
>
> I notice this issue when I am debugging code.
> This is a code bug even though the following codes will hide this issue.
> We still should need this minor fix.
>
> Built && Regression PASSed.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/riscv/riscv-v.cc: Fix bug of touching inaccessible memory.
>
> ---
> gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> index fa61a850a22..a0992773644 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> @@ -169,7 +169,11 @@ public:
>
> if (m_needs_avl_p)
> {
> - rtx len = ops[m_op_num];
> + /* The variable "m_op_num" means the real operation operands except VL
> + operand. For VLMAX patterns (no VL operand), the last operand is
> + ops[m_op_num -1]. Wheras for non-VLMAX patterns, the last operand is
> + VL operand which is ops[m_op_num]. */
> + rtx len = NULL_RTX;
> if (m_vlmax_p)
> {
> if (const_vlmax_p (m_dest_mode))
> @@ -185,6 +189,20 @@ public:
> len = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
> emit_vlmax_vsetvl (m_dest_mode, len);
> }
> + else
> + {
> + /* According to LRA mov pattern in vector.md. The VL operand is
> + always the last operand. */
> + gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
> + len = ops[m_op_num];
> + }
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + /* For non-VLMAX patterns. The VL operand is always the last
> + * operand. */
> + gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
> + len = ops[m_op_num];
> }
> add_input_operand (len, Pmode);
> }
> --
> 2.36.3
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-24 2:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-24 1:57 juzhe.zhong
2023-05-24 2:10 ` Kito Cheng
2023-05-24 2:40 ` juzhe.zhong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1AF23939B68CD7F+20230524104018579295197@rivai.ai \
--to=juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=kito.cheng@gmail.com \
--cc=kito.cheng@sifive.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=palmer@rivosinc.com \
--cc=rdapp.gcc@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).