From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] cgraph: Don't verify semantic_interposition flag for aliases [PR105399]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:46:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YmoqQEkBpuAOWTo7@tucnak> (raw)
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs, because the ctors during cc1plus all have
!opt_for_fn (decl, flag_semantic_interposition) - they have NULL
DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_OPTIMIZATION (decl) and optimization_default_node
is for -Ofast and so has flag_semantic_interposition cleared.
During free lang data, we set DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_OPTIMIZATION (decl)
for the ctor which has body (or for thunks), but don't touch it for
aliases.
During lto1 optimization_default_node reflects the lto1 flags which
are -O2 rather than -Ofast and so has flag_semantic_interposition
set, for the ctor which has body that makes no difference, but as the
alias doesn't still have DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_OPTIMIZATION (decl) set,
we now trigger this verification check.
The following patch just doesn't verify it for aliases during lto1.
Another possibility would be to set DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_OPTIMIZATION (decl)
during free lang data even for aliases.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2022-04-28 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR lto/105399
* cgraph.cc (cgraph_node::verify_node): Don't verify
semantic_interposition flag against
opt_for_fn (decl, flag_semantic_interposition) for aliases in lto1.
* g++.dg/lto/pr105399_0.C: New test.
--- gcc/cgraph.cc.jj 2022-04-20 09:24:12.194579146 +0200
+++ gcc/cgraph.cc 2022-04-27 11:53:52.102173154 +0200
@@ -3488,7 +3488,9 @@ cgraph_node::verify_node (void)
"returns a pointer");
error_found = true;
}
- if (definition && externally_visible
+ if (definition
+ && externally_visible
+ && (!alias || thunk || !in_lto_p)
&& semantic_interposition
!= opt_for_fn (decl, flag_semantic_interposition))
{
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr105399_0.C.jj 2022-04-27 11:54:25.659703199 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr105399_0.C 2022-04-27 11:48:31.387664565 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+// PR lto/105399
+// { dg-lto-do link }
+// { dg-lto-options { { -fPIC -flto -Ofast } } }
+// { dg-require-effective-target shared }
+// { dg-require-effective-target fpic }
+// { dg-extra-ld-options "-shared -O2" }
+
+struct S { S (); };
+S::S () {}
Jakub
next reply other threads:[~2022-04-28 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-28 5:46 Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2022-04-28 7:27 ` Richard Biener
2022-04-28 11:54 ` Jan Hubicka
2022-04-28 11:57 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-04-28 12:00 ` Jan Hubicka
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=YmoqQEkBpuAOWTo7@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jh@suse.cz \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/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).