Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX

Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX

[Ken Matsui]

Hi,

I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better
maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I
faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in
https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c.
At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since
c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16
and compiled GCC successfully.

However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build
GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix
patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX
= 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing
parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128).

/home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error:
expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’
   86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
      |                             ~        ^~~~~~~~~
      |                                      )
/home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error:
initializer element is not constant
   86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
      |

I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX =
260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is.
(i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.)

I have pushed the
branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23.
Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your
suggestions?

Sincerely,
Ken Matsui

Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX

[Andrew Pinski]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better
> maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I
> faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in
> https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c.
> At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since
> c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16
> and compiled GCC successfully.
>
> However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build
> GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix
> patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX
> = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing
> parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128).
>
> /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error:
> expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’
>    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
>       |                             ~        ^~~~~~~~~
>       |                                      )
> /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error:
> initializer element is not constant
>    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
>       |
>
> I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX =
> 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is.
> (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.)

From c-common.h:
#define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \
  (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code)

This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`.

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> I have pushed the
> branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23.
> Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your
> suggestions?
>
> Sincerely,
> Ken Matsui

Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX

[Ken Matsui]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better
> > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I
> > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in
> > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c.
> > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since
> > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16
> > and compiled GCC successfully.
> >
> > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build
> > GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix
> > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX
> > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing
> > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128).
> >
> > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error:
> > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’
> >    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
> >       |                             ~        ^~~~~~~~~
> >       |                                      )
> > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error:
> > initializer element is not constant
> >    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
> >       |
> >
> > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX =
> > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is.
> > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.)
>
> From c-common.h:
> #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \
>   (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code)
>
> This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`.
>

That worked! Thank you so much!

I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're
comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit
information (name and email address)?

> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> >
> > I have pushed the
> > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23.
> > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your
> > suggestions?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Ken Matsui

Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX

[Andrew Pinski]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui <kmatsui@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better
> > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I
> > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in
> > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c.
> > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since
> > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16
> > > and compiled GCC successfully.
> > >
> > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build
> > > GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix
> > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX
> > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing
> > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128).
> > >
> > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error:
> > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’
> > >    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
> > >       |                             ~        ^~~~~~~~~
> > >       |                                      )
> > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error:
> > > initializer element is not constant
> > >    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
> > >       |
> > >
> > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX =
> > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is.
> > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.)
> >
> > From c-common.h:
> > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \
> >   (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code)
> >
> > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`.
> >
>
> That worked! Thank you so much!
>
> I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're
> comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit
> information (name and email address)?

Andrew Pinski  <pinskia@gmail.com>

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> >
> > >
> > > I have pushed the
> > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23.
> > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your
> > > suggestions?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Ken Matsui

Re: Compilation Error Regarding RID_MAX

[Ken Matsui]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:38 PM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:35 PM Ken Matsui <kmatsui@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:23 PM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:09 PM Ken Matsui via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have merged all my patches into a single branch for better
> > > > maintainability for me, but I am unable to build GCC. Initially, I
> > > > faced an error related to RID_MAX, which was fixed in
> > > > https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> > > > The ICE was caused by gcc_assert (RID_MAX <= 255) in gcc/c/c-parser.c.
> > > > At this point, my new built-in exceeded the max keyword bound since
> > > > c_token->keyword has 8 bits. This patch increased the bit size to 16
> > > > and compiled GCC successfully.
> > > >
> > > > However, I still encountered an unusual error and am unable to build
> > > > GCC on https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commit/c32d49bc990acde4d3ec5654ddb81b0a7d081378.
> > > > This is the 4th built-in implementation after the previous RID_MAX fix
> > > > patch (i.e., this increases the total number of keywords, now RID_MAX
> > > > = 260). The error message indicates that there is a missing
> > > > parenthesis after 'unsigned' for the expression (unsigned __int128).
> > > >
> > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:38: error:
> > > > expected ‘)’ before ‘__int128’
> > > >    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
> > > >       |                             ~        ^~~~~~~~~
> > > >       |                                      )
> > > > /home/kmatsui/gcc/objdir/gcc/include/bmi2intrin.h:86:29: error:
> > > > initializer element is not constant
> > > >    86 |   unsigned __int128 __res = (unsigned __int128) __X * __Y;
> > > >       |
> > > >
> > > > I reordered the commits, but it seems that the 4th built-in (RID_MAX =
> > > > 260) after the RID_MAX tweak fails, regardless of what the 4th is.
> > > > (i.e., the __remove_pointer implementation itself is not the reason.)
> > >
> > > From c-common.h:
> > > #define C_SET_RID_CODE(id, code) \
> > >   (((struct c_common_identifier *) (id))->node.rid_code = (unsigned char) code)
> > >
> > > This is definitely incorrect now. It should be using `unsigned short`.
> > >
> >
> > That worked! Thank you so much!
> >
> > I would like to attribute this change to you, but if you're
> > comfortable with it, could you please share the relevant commit
> > information (name and email address)?
>
> Andrew Pinski  <pinskia@gmail.com>
>

Thank you!

> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have pushed the
> > > > branch to https://github.com/ken-matsui/gcc-gsoc23/commits/me/gsoc23.
> > > > Could someone please help me inspect the issue and provide your
> > > > suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Ken Matsui