From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6539F3858C83 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 19:34:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6539F3858C83 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1684265688; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type; bh=hpqTxl8XNyreknANLKaYwl6lDTbDYgqtRQCesPgtJGs=; b=gk+tWXJ+iaESCNTyXz6I05N6rX2QSm+qedLCXAo1L3dsFNGCj7mfX56hJy8K0vMGzWXegw aWHu4PAQurtpLJnnItktNH0RI7C1X/95kNhJxn1FAO5f1EP4WHNHrkfIMNjoYtdlOQ4Ge3 5cPnz76zPiXSJPelRDt9j0crtk/0tS4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-654-xRI4A5rsPuqYav0b_dIg8A-1; Tue, 16 May 2023 15:34:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xRI4A5rsPuqYav0b_dIg8A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C6D185A7A2 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 19:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.17]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AC801121314; Tue, 16 May 2023 19:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 34GJYh1O2453580 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 May 2023 21:34:44 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 34GJYh2I2453579; Tue, 16 May 2023 21:34:43 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 21:34:42 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jason Merrill Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [PATCH] c++: Don't try to initialize zero width bitfields in zero initialization [PR109868] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi! My GCC 12 change to avoid removing zero-sized bitfields as they are important for ABI and are needed for layout compatibility traits apparently causes zero sized bitfields to be initialized in the IL, which at least in 13+ results in ICEs in the ranger which is upset about zero precision types. I think we could even avoid initializing other unnamed bitfields, but unfortunately !CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING doesn't mean in the middle-end clearing of padding bits and until we have some new flag that represents the request to clear padding bits, I think it is better to keep zeroing non-zero sized unnamed bitfields. In addition to skipping those fields, I have changed the logic how UNION_TYPEs are handled, the current code was a little bit weird in that e.g. if first non-static data member had error_mark_node type, we'd happily zero initialize the second non-static data member, etc. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk/13, perhaps even 12? 2023-05-16 Jakub Jelinek PR c++/109868 * init.cc (build_zero_init_1): Don't initialize zero-width bitfields. For unions only initialize the first FIELD_DECL. * g++.dg/init/pr109868.C: New test. --- gcc/cp/init.cc.jj 2023-05-01 23:07:05.147417750 +0200 +++ gcc/cp/init.cc 2023-05-16 10:01:14.512489727 +0200 @@ -189,15 +189,21 @@ build_zero_init_1 (tree type, tree nelts init = build_zero_cst (type); else if (RECORD_OR_UNION_CODE_P (TREE_CODE (type))) { - tree field; + tree field, next; vec *v = NULL; /* Iterate over the fields, building initializations. */ - for (field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field)) + for (field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = next) { + next = DECL_CHAIN (field); + if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL) continue; + /* For unions, only the first field is initialized. */ + if (TREE_CODE (type) == UNION_TYPE) + next = NULL_TREE; + if (TREE_TYPE (field) == error_mark_node) continue; @@ -212,6 +218,11 @@ build_zero_init_1 (tree type, tree nelts continue; } + /* Don't add zero width bitfields. */ + if (DECL_C_BIT_FIELD (field) + && integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field))) + continue; + /* Note that for class types there will be FIELD_DECLs corresponding to base classes as well. Thus, iterating over TYPE_FIELDs will result in correct initialization of @@ -230,10 +241,6 @@ build_zero_init_1 (tree type, tree nelts if (value) CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT(v, field, value); } - - /* For unions, only the first field is initialized. */ - if (TREE_CODE (type) == UNION_TYPE) - break; } /* Build a constructor to contain the initializations. */ --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr109868.C.jj 2023-05-16 09:43:54.706278293 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr109868.C 2023-05-16 09:44:16.581966894 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +// PR c++/109868 +// { dg-do compile } +// { dg-options "-O2" } + +struct A { virtual void foo (); }; +struct B { long b; int : 0; }; +struct C : A { B c; }; + +void +bar (C *p) +{ + *p = C (); +} Jakub