From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74848 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2017 17:30:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 74821 invoked by uid 89); 17 Oct 2017 17:30:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-16.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:30:55 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0DA9820E4; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:30:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D0DA9820E4 Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law@redhat.com Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-35.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313837EE60; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix bitmap_bit_in_range_p (PR tree-optimization/82493). To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <9c9fd60f-cb7a-e702-aabb-9e31dca6a92a@suse.cz> <2215478f-6715-189a-e6a4-8d171901d31f@redhat.com> <2903a0d3-a2f1-791e-bff9-0d5939832dfa@suse.cz> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:33:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2903a0d3-a2f1-791e-bff9-0d5939832dfa@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg01083.txt.bz2 On 10/13/2017 07:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/12/2017 11:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 10/11/2017 12:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> 2017-10-10 Martin Liska >>> >>> PR tree-optimization/82493 >>> * sbitmap.c (bitmap_bit_in_range_p): Fix the implementation. >>> (test_range_functions): New function. >>> (sbitmap_c_tests): Likewise. >>> * selftest-run-tests.c (selftest::run_tests): Run new tests. >>> * selftest.h (sbitmap_c_tests): New function. >> I went ahead and committed this along with a patch to fix the off-by-one >> error in live_bytes_read. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86. >> >> Actual patch attached for archival purposes. >> >> Jeff >> > Hello. > > I wrote a patch that adds various gcc_checking_asserts and I hit following: > > ./xgcc -B. /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_result_12.f90 -c -O2 > during GIMPLE pass: dse > /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_result_12.f90:7:0: > > program testat > > internal compiler error: in bitmap_check_index, at sbitmap.h:105 > 0x1c014c1 bitmap_check_index > ../../gcc/sbitmap.h:105 > 0x1c01fa7 bitmap_bit_in_range_p(simple_bitmap_def const*, unsigned int, unsigned int) > ../../gcc/sbitmap.c:335 > 0x1179002 live_bytes_read > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:497 > 0x117935a dse_classify_store > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:595 > 0x1179947 dse_dom_walker::dse_optimize_stmt(gimple_stmt_iterator*) > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:786 > 0x1179b6e dse_dom_walker::before_dom_children(basic_block_def*) > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:853 > 0x1a6f659 dom_walker::walk(basic_block_def*) > ../../gcc/domwalk.c:308 > 0x1179cb9 execute > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:907 > > Where we call: > Breakpoint 1, bitmap_bit_in_range_p (bmap=0x29d6cd0, start=0, end=515) at ../../gcc/sbitmap.c:335 > 335 bitmap_check_index (bmap, end); > (gdb) p *bmap > $1 = {n_bits = 256, size = 4, elms = {255}} > > Is it a valid call or should caller check indices? > > Martin > > > 0002-Add-gcc_checking_assert-for-sbitmap.c.patch > > > From ba3d597be70b8329abafe92da868ab5250610840 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: marxin > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:39:08 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Add gcc_checking_assert for sbitmap.c. > > --- > gcc/sbitmap.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > gcc/sbitmap.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+) So the only change that concerned me was the bitmap_subset_p test. In theory they don't need to be the same size for that test. However, I think we should go ahead with your patch as-is and deal with that possibility if and when we need the capability to do a subset test with different sized bitmaps. jeff