* [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163]
@ 2023-03-23 20:35 Jason Merrill
2023-03-23 21:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-23 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches, Jakub Jelinek
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Jakub, does this make sense to you? Do we have a
way of testing for compile-hog regressions?
-- 8< --
The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts and ARRAY_REF
as sequenced in C++17, and COMPONENT_REF as well. But this is unnecessary
for COMPONENT_REF, since the RHS is just a FIELD_DECL with no actual
evaluation, and in this testcase handling COMPONENT_REF as sequenced blows
up fast in a deep inheritance tree.
PR c++/107163
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-common.cc (verify_tree): Don't use sequenced handling
for COMPONENT_REF.
---
gcc/c-family/c-common.cc | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
index bfb950e56db..a803cf94c68 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
@@ -2154,7 +2154,6 @@ verify_tree (tree x, struct tlist **pbefore_sp, struct tlist **pno_sp,
case LSHIFT_EXPR:
case RSHIFT_EXPR:
- case COMPONENT_REF:
case ARRAY_REF:
if (cxx_dialect >= cxx17)
goto sequenced_binary;
base-commit: 4872e46e080c6695dfe1f9dc9db26b4703bc348c
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163]
2023-03-23 20:35 [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163] Jason Merrill
@ 2023-03-23 21:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-24 22:11 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2023-03-23 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:35:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Jakub, does this make sense to you? Do we have a
> way of testing for compile-hog regressions?
>
> -- 8< --
>
> The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts and ARRAY_REF
> as sequenced in C++17, and COMPONENT_REF as well. But this is unnecessary
> for COMPONENT_REF, since the RHS is just a FIELD_DECL with no actual
> evaluation, and in this testcase handling COMPONENT_REF as sequenced blows
> up fast in a deep inheritance tree.
>
> PR c++/107163
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>
> * c-common.cc (verify_tree): Don't use sequenced handling
> for COMPONENT_REF.
When we touch this for COMPONENT_REF, shouldn't we then handle it as
unary given that the second operand is FIELD_DECL and third/fourth
will likely be NULL and even if not, aren't user expressions that should be
inspected?
So, instead of doing this do:
case COMPONENT_REF:
x = TREE_OPERAND (x, 0);
writer = 0;
goto restart;
?
As for compile-hog, depends on how long it will take it to compile before
fix/after fix. If before fix can be above the normal timeout on reasonably
fast matchines and after fix can take a few seconds, great, if after fix
would take longer but still not horribly long, one way to do it is
guard the test with run_expensive_tests effective target. Or another way
is have the test smaller in complexity normally and
// { dg-additional-options "-DEXPENSIVE" { target run_expensive_tests } }
and #ifdef EXPENSIVE make it more complex.
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163]
2023-03-23 21:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2023-03-24 22:11 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-24 22:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-24 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2082 bytes --]
On 3/23/23 17:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:35:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Jakub, does this make sense to you? Do we have a
>> way of testing for compile-hog regressions?
>>
>> -- 8< --
>>
>> The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts and ARRAY_REF
>> as sequenced in C++17, and COMPONENT_REF as well. But this is unnecessary
>> for COMPONENT_REF, since the RHS is just a FIELD_DECL with no actual
>> evaluation, and in this testcase handling COMPONENT_REF as sequenced blows
>> up fast in a deep inheritance tree.
>>
>> PR c++/107163
>>
>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * c-common.cc (verify_tree): Don't use sequenced handling
>> for COMPONENT_REF.
>
> When we touch this for COMPONENT_REF, shouldn't we then handle it as
> unary given that the second operand is FIELD_DECL and third/fourth
> will likely be NULL and even if not, aren't user expressions that should be
> inspected?
> So, instead of doing this do:
> case COMPONENT_REF:
> x = TREE_OPERAND (x, 0);
> writer = 0;
> goto restart;
> ?
Is clearing 'writer' what we want, since an access to COMPONENT_REF is
an access to (a subobject of) its op0?
> As for compile-hog, depends on how long it will take it to compile before
> fix/after fix. If before fix can be above the normal timeout on reasonably
> fast matchines and after fix can take a few seconds, great
Currently with the fix it takes <1s while gcc12 takes ~80s.
> if after fix
> would take longer but still not horribly long, one way to do it is
> guard the test with run_expensive_tests effective target. Or another way
> is have the test smaller in complexity normally and
> // { dg-additional-options "-DEXPENSIVE" { target run_expensive_tests } }
> and #ifdef EXPENSIVE make it more complex.
Curiously, making the recursion much deeper doesn't work for that; I
guess at some point the -Wsequence-point code decides the expression is
too complex and gives up?
But repeating the assignment brings it up over the timeout.
How about this?
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-c-family-Wsequence-point-and-COMPONENT_REF-PR107163.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2454 bytes --]
From bb302f97929df9b854f7f929093441da60305254 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 15:57:39 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163]
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts and ARRAY_REF
as sequenced in C++17, and COMPONENT_REF as well. But this is unnecessary
for COMPONENT_REF, since the RHS is just a FIELD_DECL with no actual
evaluation, and in this testcase handling COMPONENT_REF as sequenced blows
up fast in a deep inheritance tree. Instead, look through it.
PR c++/107163
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-common.cc (verify_tree): Don't use sequenced handling
for COMPONENT_REF.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/recurse5.C: New test.
---
gcc/c-family/c-common.cc | 5 +++-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/recurse5.C | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/recurse5.C
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
index bfb950e56db..07f7beac8fd 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.cc
@@ -2154,12 +2154,15 @@ verify_tree (tree x, struct tlist **pbefore_sp, struct tlist **pno_sp,
case LSHIFT_EXPR:
case RSHIFT_EXPR:
- case COMPONENT_REF:
case ARRAY_REF:
if (cxx_dialect >= cxx17)
goto sequenced_binary;
goto do_default;
+ case COMPONENT_REF:
+ x = TREE_OPERAND (x, 0);
+ goto restart;
+
default:
do_default:
/* For other expressions, simply recurse on their operands.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/recurse5.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/recurse5.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..0354ab09f53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/recurse5.C
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// PR c++/107163
+// { dg-additional-options "-Wsequence-point" }
+
+struct BaseType {
+ int i;
+};
+
+template< int Seq >
+class DerivedType : public DerivedType< Seq - 1 > { };
+
+template<>
+class DerivedType< -1 > : public BaseType { };
+
+int main() {
+ DerivedType< 400 > d;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ d.i = 42;
+ return d.i;
+}
--
2.31.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163]
2023-03-24 22:11 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2023-03-24 22:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-28 15:31 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2023-03-24 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 06:11:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > When we touch this for COMPONENT_REF, shouldn't we then handle it as
> > unary given that the second operand is FIELD_DECL and third/fourth
> > will likely be NULL and even if not, aren't user expressions that should be
> > inspected?
> > So, instead of doing this do:
> > case COMPONENT_REF:
> > x = TREE_OPERAND (x, 0);
> > writer = 0;
> > goto restart;
> > ?
>
> Is clearing 'writer' what we want, since an access to COMPONENT_REF is an
> access to (a subobject of) its op0?
I've just mindlessly copied the unary op case.
writer is set for pre/post increments and lhs of MODIFY_EXPR, and it is
true that VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR doesn't clear it, but e.g. ARRAY_REF clears it
for all operands.
> Currently with the fix it takes <1s while gcc12 takes ~80s.
Perfect.
> PR c++/107163
>
> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>
> * c-common.cc (verify_tree): Don't use sequenced handling
> for COMPONENT_REF.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/template/recurse5.C: New test.
LGTM, thanks. Maybe the testcase would be better as
warn/Wsequence-point-5.C, dunno.
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163]
2023-03-24 22:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2023-03-28 15:31 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-28 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 3/24/23 18:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 06:11:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> When we touch this for COMPONENT_REF, shouldn't we then handle it as
>>> unary given that the second operand is FIELD_DECL and third/fourth
>>> will likely be NULL and even if not, aren't user expressions that should be
>>> inspected?
>>> So, instead of doing this do:
>>> case COMPONENT_REF:
>>> x = TREE_OPERAND (x, 0);
>>> writer = 0;
>>> goto restart;
>>> ?
>>
>> Is clearing 'writer' what we want, since an access to COMPONENT_REF is an
>> access to (a subobject of) its op0?
>
> I've just mindlessly copied the unary op case.
> writer is set for pre/post increments and lhs of MODIFY_EXPR, and it is
> true that VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR doesn't clear it, but e.g. ARRAY_REF clears it
> for all operands.
For whatever reason leaving writer set led to lots of false positives,
so I've gone with your suggestion.
>> Currently with the fix it takes <1s while gcc12 takes ~80s.
>
> Perfect.
>
>> PR c++/107163
>>
>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * c-common.cc (verify_tree): Don't use sequenced handling
>> for COMPONENT_REF.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * g++.dg/template/recurse5.C: New test.
>
> LGTM, thanks. Maybe the testcase would be better as
> warn/Wsequence-point-5.C, dunno.
Done.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-28 15:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-23 20:35 [PATCH RFC] c-family: -Wsequence-point and COMPONENT_REF [PR107163] Jason Merrill
2023-03-23 21:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-24 22:11 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-24 22:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-28 15:31 ` Jason Merrill
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).