From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
To: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Weird problem
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1435630635.13727.195.camel@surprise> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435628280.13727.192.camel@surprise>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3491 bytes --]
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 21:38 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 21:11 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 22:25 +0100, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> > > On 29 June 2015 at 22:08, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looking at src/lvm.c, I see that the signature of luaV_tonumber and that
> > > > lua_Number can be various types, including "double".
> > > > int luaV_tonumber_ (const TValue *obj, lua_Number *n)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am using double as lua_Number.
> > >
> > > > Does the type signature of luaV_tonumber as compiled by the main
> > > > compiler agree with that supplied by gcc_jit_context_new_function? If
> > > > one of them is e.g. expecting a float *, but the other is expecting a
> > > > double *, then you might get the symptoms you're seeing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I checked this - I think they match.
> > >
> > > > If that doesn't highlight a cause, maybe you're running into a libgccjit
> > > > bug. If so, can you generate a reproducer and post it here so I can
> > > > poke at it please?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Attached is a reproducer.
> >
> > Thanks; I'm able to run the reproducer, at least to the point of being
> > able to invoke gcc_jit_context_compile on it.
> >
> > Interestingly, looking at the gimple dump (via
> > GCC_JIT_BOOL_OPTION_DUMP_INITIAL_GIMPLE), I see:
> >
> > <float:64> OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.0;
> > <float:64> OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.1;
> > [...snip...]
> > <float:64> OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8;
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_if_not_float_2_10:
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.0 = OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8;
> > printf ("number %p = %f before call to luaV_number",
> > &OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.0, OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8);
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.1 = OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8;
> > [...snip...]
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.1 = OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8;
> > D.392 = 0;
> > D.393 = base + D.392;
> > D.405 = luaV_tonumber_ (D.393, &OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.1);
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ here's the call ^^^^^
> > comparison_0_12 = D.405 == 0;
> > if (comparison_0_12 != 0) goto
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_if_conversion_failed_2_13; else goto
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_if_conversion_ok_2_14;
> >
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_done_2_11:
> > D.390 = L->ci;
> > base = D.390->u.l.base;
> > D.399 = 16;
> > D.400 = base + D.399;
> > L->top = D.400;
> > D.394 = cl->p;
> > D.406 = D.394->sizep;
> > comparison_0_15 = D.406 > 0;
> > if (comparison_0_15 != 0) goto OP_RETURN_if_sizep_gt_0_3_16; else goto
> > OP_RETURN_else_sizep_gt_0_3_17;
> >
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_if_conversion_failed_2_13:
> > luaG_runerror (L, "number expected");
> > goto OP_RAVI_TOFLT_if_conversion_ok_2_14;
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_if_conversion_ok_2_14:
> > printf ("number ok = %f", OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8);
> >
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > which, if I'm reading it right, suggests that the local has effectively
> > been split into three locals during the conversion to gimple, and that a
> > ptr to
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8.1
> > is passed to luaV_tonumber_, but
> > OP_RAVI_TOFLT_n_2_8
> > is then used.
> >
> > This is feeling like a bug at my end; sorry. I'll continue to
> > investigate.
>
> Definitely looks like a bug at my end.
>
> I've created a minimal reproducer, and filed it as
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66700.
>
> I plan to investigate further tomorrow.
>
> Sorry about this.
Does the attached patch fix it for you?
(it's currently a bit of a hack; hope to get it more robust tomorrow)
[-- Attachment #2: set-TREE_ADDRESSABLE.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 402 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/jit/jit-playback.c b/gcc/jit/jit-playback.c
index 395a776..5ffc16f 100644
--- a/gcc/jit/jit-playback.c
+++ b/gcc/jit/jit-playback.c
@@ -1179,6 +1179,7 @@ get_address (location *loc)
tree ptr = build1 (ADDR_EXPR, t_ptrtype, t_lvalue);
if (loc)
get_context ()->set_tree_location (ptr, loc);
+ TREE_ADDRESSABLE (t_lvalue) = 1;
return new rvalue (get_context (), ptr);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 2:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-01 0:00 Dibyendu Majumdar
2015-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm
2015-01-01 0:00 ` Dibyendu Majumdar
2015-01-01 0:00 ` Dibyendu Majumdar
2015-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm
2015-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm
2015-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-01-01 0:00 Dibyendu Majumdar
2015-01-01 0:00 ` Dibyendu Majumdar
2015-01-01 0:00 ` David Malcolm
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=1435630635.13727.195.camel@surprise \
--to=dmalcolm@redhat.com \
--cc=jit@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mobile@majumdar.org.uk \
/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).