[PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[Antoni Boucher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 504 bytes --]

Hi.
This patch fixes the segfault when using -flto with libgccjit (bug
111396).

You mentioned in bugzilla that this didn't fix the reproducer for you,
but it does for me.
At first, the test case would not pass, but running "make install" made
it pass.
Not sure if this is normal.

Could you please check if this fixes the issue on your side as well?
Since this patch changes files outside of gcc/jit, what tests should I
run to make sure it didn't break anything?

Thanks for the review.

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-libgccjit-Fix-GGC-segfault-when-using-flto.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 8127 bytes --]

From f26d0f37e8d83bce1f5aa53c393961a8bd518d16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:52:32 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

gcc/ChangeLog:
	PR jit/111396
	* ipa-fnsummary.cc (ipa_fnsummary_cc_finalize): Call
	ipa_free_size_summary.
	* ipa-icf.cc (ipa_icf_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-profile.cc (ipa_profile_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-prop.cc (ipa_prop_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-prop.h (ipa_prop_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-sra.cc (ipa_sra_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-utils.h (ipa_profile_cc_finalize, ipa_icf_cc_finalize,
	ipa_sra_cc_finalize): New functions.
	* toplev.cc (toplev::finalize): Call ipa_icf_cc_finalize,
	ipa_prop_cc_finalize, ipa_profile_cc_finalize and
	ipa_sra_cc_finalize
	Include ipa-utils.h.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
	PR jit/111396
	* jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h: Add new test-ggc-bugfix.
	* jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c: New test.
---
 gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc                         |  1 +
 gcc/ipa-icf.cc                               |  9 ++++++
 gcc/ipa-profile.cc                           | 10 ++++++
 gcc/ipa-prop.cc                              | 18 +++++++++++
 gcc/ipa-prop.h                               |  2 ++
 gcc/ipa-sra.cc                               | 12 +++++++
 gcc/ipa-utils.h                              |  7 ++++
 gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h | 12 ++++++-
 gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c       | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++
 gcc/toplev.cc                                |  5 +++
 10 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c

diff --git a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
index a2495ffe63e..34e011c4b50 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
@@ -5090,4 +5090,5 @@ void
 ipa_fnsummary_cc_finalize (void)
 {
   ipa_free_fn_summary ();
+  ipa_free_size_summary ();
 }
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.cc b/gcc/ipa-icf.cc
index bbdfd445397..ba6c6899ce6 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-icf.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-icf.cc
@@ -3657,3 +3657,12 @@ make_pass_ipa_icf (gcc::context *ctxt)
 {
   return new ipa_icf::pass_ipa_icf (ctxt);
 }
+
+/* Reset all state within ipa-icf.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_icf_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  ipa_icf::optimizer = NULL;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-profile.cc b/gcc/ipa-profile.cc
index 78a40a118bc..8083b8195a8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-profile.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-profile.cc
@@ -1065,3 +1065,13 @@ make_pass_ipa_profile (gcc::context *ctxt)
 {
   return new pass_ipa_profile (ctxt);
 }
+
+/* Reset all state within ipa-profile.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_profile_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  delete call_sums;
+  call_sums = NULL;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc b/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
index 827bdb691ba..32cfb7754be 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
@@ -5904,5 +5904,23 @@ ipcp_transform_function (struct cgraph_node *node)
   return modified_mem_access ? TODO_update_ssa_only_virtuals : 0;
 }
 
+/* Reset all state within ipa-prop.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_prop_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  if (function_insertion_hook_holder)
+    symtab->remove_cgraph_insertion_hook (function_insertion_hook_holder);
+  function_insertion_hook_holder = NULL;
+
+  if (ipa_edge_args_sum)
+    ggc_delete (ipa_edge_args_sum);
+  ipa_edge_args_sum = NULL;
+
+  if (ipa_node_params_sum)
+    ggc_delete (ipa_node_params_sum);
+  ipa_node_params_sum = NULL;
+}
 
 #include "gt-ipa-prop.h"
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.h b/gcc/ipa-prop.h
index fcd0e5c638f..4409c4afee9 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.h
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.h
@@ -1255,6 +1255,8 @@ tree ipcp_get_aggregate_const (struct function *func, tree parm, bool by_ref,
 bool unadjusted_ptr_and_unit_offset (tree op, tree *ret,
 				     poly_int64 *offset_ret);
 
+void ipa_prop_cc_finalize (void);
+
 /* From tree-sra.cc:  */
 tree build_ref_for_offset (location_t, tree, poly_int64, bool, tree,
 			   gimple_stmt_iterator *, bool);
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-sra.cc b/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
index 6ffad335db4..2ac6fee14c4 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
@@ -4707,5 +4707,17 @@ make_pass_ipa_sra (gcc::context *ctxt)
   return new pass_ipa_sra (ctxt);
 }
 
+/* Reset all state within ipa-sra.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_sra_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  if (func_sums)
+    ggc_delete (func_sums);
+  func_sums = NULL;
+  delete call_sums;
+  call_sums = NULL;
+}
 
 #include "gt-ipa-sra.h"
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-utils.h b/gcc/ipa-utils.h
index 0eefcf40d44..5f1e6601ff8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-utils.h
+++ b/gcc/ipa-utils.h
@@ -57,6 +57,13 @@ bool ipa_make_function_pure (cgraph_node *, bool, bool);
 
 /* In ipa-profile.cc  */
 bool ipa_propagate_frequency (struct cgraph_node *node);
+void ipa_profile_cc_finalize (void);
+
+/* In ipa-icf.cc  */
+void ipa_icf_cc_finalize (void);
+
+/* In ipa-sra.cc  */
+void ipa_sra_cc_finalize (void);
 
 /* In ipa-devirt.cc  */
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h
index e762563f9bd..aee0a35d104 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h
@@ -377,6 +377,13 @@
 #undef create_code
 #undef verify_code
 
+/* test-ggc-bugfix.c */
+#define create_code create_code_ggc_bugfix
+#define verify_code verify_code_ggc_bugfix
+#include "test-ggc-bugfix.c"
+#undef create_code
+#undef verify_code
+
 /* Now expose the individual testcases as instances of this struct.  */
 
 struct testcase
@@ -529,7 +536,10 @@ const struct testcase testcases[] = {
    verify_code_version},
   {"volatile",
    create_code_volatile,
-   verify_code_volatile}
+   verify_code_volatile},
+  {"ggc_bugfix",
+   create_code_ggc_bugfix,
+   verify_code_ggc_bugfix},
 };
 
 const int num_testcases = (sizeof (testcases) / sizeof (testcases[0]));
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..59eb374af8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target x86_64-*-* } } */
+
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+#include "libgccjit.h"
+
+#include "harness.h"
+
+void
+create_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, void *user_data)
+{
+  gcc_jit_context_add_command_line_option (ctxt, "-flto");
+  gcc_jit_context_add_driver_option (ctxt, "-nostdlib");
+
+  gcc_jit_type *type_int = gcc_jit_context_get_type (ctxt, GCC_JIT_TYPE_INT);
+  gcc_jit_param *params_for_func_main[0] = {
+  };
+  gcc_jit_function *func_main =
+    gcc_jit_context_new_function (ctxt, NULL, GCC_JIT_FUNCTION_EXPORTED,
+                                  type_int, "main", 0, params_for_func_main,
+                                  0);
+  gcc_jit_block *block_start =
+    gcc_jit_function_new_block (func_main, "start");
+  gcc_jit_rvalue *rvalue__int_42 =
+    gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int (ctxt, type_int, 42);
+  gcc_jit_block_end_with_return (block_start, NULL, rvalue__int_42);
+}
+
+void
+verify_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, gcc_jit_result *result)
+{
+  CHECK_NON_NULL (result);
+}
diff --git a/gcc/toplev.cc b/gcc/toplev.cc
index d8e8978dd55..2a8743f7bb4 100644
--- a/gcc/toplev.cc
+++ b/gcc/toplev.cc
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
 #include "symbol-summary.h"
 #include "tree-vrp.h"
 #include "ipa-prop.h"
+#include "ipa-utils.h"
 #include "gcse.h"
 #include "omp-offload.h"
 #include "edit-context.h"
@@ -2337,7 +2338,11 @@ toplev::finalize (void)
   ipa_fnsummary_cc_finalize ();
   ipa_modref_cc_finalize ();
   ipa_edge_modifications_finalize ();
+  ipa_icf_cc_finalize ();
 
+  ipa_prop_cc_finalize ();
+  ipa_profile_cc_finalize ();
+  ipa_sra_cc_finalize ();
   cgraph_cc_finalize ();
   cgraphunit_cc_finalize ();
   symtab_thunks_cc_finalize ();
-- 
2.42.0

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[David Malcolm]

On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 11:02 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Hi.
> This patch fixes the segfault when using -flto with libgccjit (bug
> 111396).
> 
> You mentioned in bugzilla that this didn't fix the reproducer for
> you,

Rereading https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396 it looks
like all I tested back in August was your reproducer; I didn't yet test
your patch.

> but it does for me.
> At first, the test case would not pass, but running "make install"
> made
> it pass.
> Not sure if this is normal.
> 
> Could you please check if this fixes the issue on your side as well?
> Since this patch changes files outside of gcc/jit, what tests should
> I
> run to make sure it didn't break anything?

I'm trying your patch in my tester now.

BTW, we shouldn't add test-ggc-bugfix to since it adds options to the
context: this would affect all the other tests.


Dave

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[David Malcolm]

On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 18:14 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 11:02 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > Hi.
> > This patch fixes the segfault when using -flto with libgccjit (bug
> > 111396).
> > 
> > You mentioned in bugzilla that this didn't fix the reproducer for
> > you,
> 
> Rereading https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396 it
> looks
> like all I tested back in August was your reproducer; I didn't yet
> test
> your patch.
> 
> > but it does for me.
> > At first, the test case would not pass, but running "make install"
> > made
> > it pass.
> > Not sure if this is normal.
> > 
> > Could you please check if this fixes the issue on your side as
> > well?
> > Since this patch changes files outside of gcc/jit, what tests
> > should
> > I
> > run to make sure it didn't break anything?
> 
> I'm trying your patch in my tester now.

Bootstrapped with x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/build.  No changes to non-jit
tests, but had this effect on jit.sum:

Changes to jit.sum
------------------

  FAIL: 9->11 (+2)
  PASS: 14827->11434 (-3393)

apparently due to:
 FAIL: test-combination.c.exe iteration 1 of 5: verify_code_accessing_bitfield: result is NULL
 FAIL: test-combination.c.exe killed: 997638 exp16 0 0 CHILDKILLED SIGABRT SIGABRT

> 
> BTW, we shouldn't add test-ggc-bugfix to since it adds options to the
> context: this would affect all the other tests.

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[Antoni Boucher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1803 bytes --]

Here's the updated patch.
The failure was due to the test being in the test array while it should
not have been there since it changes the context.

Thanks for the review.

On Sun, 2023-11-12 at 18:03 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 18:14 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 11:02 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > This patch fixes the segfault when using -flto with libgccjit
> > > (bug
> > > 111396).
> > > 
> > > You mentioned in bugzilla that this didn't fix the reproducer for
> > > you,
> > 
> > Rereading https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396 it
> > looks
> > like all I tested back in August was your reproducer; I didn't yet
> > test
> > your patch.
> > 
> > > but it does for me.
> > > At first, the test case would not pass, but running "make
> > > install"
> > > made
> > > it pass.
> > > Not sure if this is normal.
> > > 
> > > Could you please check if this fixes the issue on your side as
> > > well?
> > > Since this patch changes files outside of gcc/jit, what tests
> > > should
> > > I
> > > run to make sure it didn't break anything?
> > 
> > I'm trying your patch in my tester now.
> 
> Bootstrapped with x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/build.  No changes to non-jit
> tests, but had this effect on jit.sum:
> 
> Changes to jit.sum
> ------------------
> 
>   FAIL: 9->11 (+2)
>   PASS: 14827->11434 (-3393)
> 
> apparently due to:
>  FAIL: test-combination.c.exe iteration 1 of 5:
> verify_code_accessing_bitfield: result is NULL
>  FAIL: test-combination.c.exe killed: 997638 exp16 0 0 CHILDKILLED
> SIGABRT SIGABRT
> 
> > 
> > BTW, we shouldn't add test-ggc-bugfix to since it adds options to
> > the
> > context: this would affect all the other tests.
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-libgccjit-Fix-GGC-segfault-when-using-flto.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 7779 bytes --]

From 4024224e57a465e414fa26d21a57e188aadb349c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:52:32 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

gcc/ChangeLog:
	PR jit/111396
	* ipa-fnsummary.cc (ipa_fnsummary_cc_finalize): Call
	ipa_free_size_summary.
	* ipa-icf.cc (ipa_icf_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-profile.cc (ipa_profile_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-prop.cc (ipa_prop_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-prop.h (ipa_prop_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-sra.cc (ipa_sra_cc_finalize): New function.
	* ipa-utils.h (ipa_profile_cc_finalize, ipa_icf_cc_finalize,
	ipa_sra_cc_finalize): New functions.
	* toplev.cc (toplev::finalize): Call ipa_icf_cc_finalize,
	ipa_prop_cc_finalize, ipa_profile_cc_finalize and
	ipa_sra_cc_finalize
	Include ipa-utils.h.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
	PR jit/111396
	* jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h: Add note about test-ggc-bugfix.
	* jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c: New test.
---
 gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc                         |  1 +
 gcc/ipa-icf.cc                               |  9 ++++++
 gcc/ipa-profile.cc                           | 10 ++++++
 gcc/ipa-prop.cc                              | 18 +++++++++++
 gcc/ipa-prop.h                               |  2 ++
 gcc/ipa-sra.cc                               | 12 +++++++
 gcc/ipa-utils.h                              |  7 ++++
 gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h |  4 +++
 gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c       | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++
 gcc/toplev.cc                                |  5 +++
 10 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c

diff --git a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
index a2495ffe63e..34e011c4b50 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.cc
@@ -5090,4 +5090,5 @@ void
 ipa_fnsummary_cc_finalize (void)
 {
   ipa_free_fn_summary ();
+  ipa_free_size_summary ();
 }
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf.cc b/gcc/ipa-icf.cc
index bbdfd445397..ba6c6899ce6 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-icf.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-icf.cc
@@ -3657,3 +3657,12 @@ make_pass_ipa_icf (gcc::context *ctxt)
 {
   return new ipa_icf::pass_ipa_icf (ctxt);
 }
+
+/* Reset all state within ipa-icf.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_icf_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  ipa_icf::optimizer = NULL;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-profile.cc b/gcc/ipa-profile.cc
index 78a40a118bc..8083b8195a8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-profile.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-profile.cc
@@ -1065,3 +1065,13 @@ make_pass_ipa_profile (gcc::context *ctxt)
 {
   return new pass_ipa_profile (ctxt);
 }
+
+/* Reset all state within ipa-profile.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_profile_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  delete call_sums;
+  call_sums = NULL;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc b/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
index 7de2b788185..31ca5af061e 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.cc
@@ -5915,5 +5915,23 @@ ipcp_transform_function (struct cgraph_node *node)
   return modified_mem_access ? TODO_update_ssa_only_virtuals : 0;
 }
 
+/* Reset all state within ipa-prop.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_prop_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  if (function_insertion_hook_holder)
+    symtab->remove_cgraph_insertion_hook (function_insertion_hook_holder);
+  function_insertion_hook_holder = NULL;
+
+  if (ipa_edge_args_sum)
+    ggc_delete (ipa_edge_args_sum);
+  ipa_edge_args_sum = NULL;
+
+  if (ipa_node_params_sum)
+    ggc_delete (ipa_node_params_sum);
+  ipa_node_params_sum = NULL;
+}
 
 #include "gt-ipa-prop.h"
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.h b/gcc/ipa-prop.h
index fcd0e5c638f..4409c4afee9 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-prop.h
+++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.h
@@ -1255,6 +1255,8 @@ tree ipcp_get_aggregate_const (struct function *func, tree parm, bool by_ref,
 bool unadjusted_ptr_and_unit_offset (tree op, tree *ret,
 				     poly_int64 *offset_ret);
 
+void ipa_prop_cc_finalize (void);
+
 /* From tree-sra.cc:  */
 tree build_ref_for_offset (location_t, tree, poly_int64, bool, tree,
 			   gimple_stmt_iterator *, bool);
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-sra.cc b/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
index 6ffad335db4..2ac6fee14c4 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-sra.cc
@@ -4707,5 +4707,17 @@ make_pass_ipa_sra (gcc::context *ctxt)
   return new pass_ipa_sra (ctxt);
 }
 
+/* Reset all state within ipa-sra.cc so that we can rerun the compiler
+   within the same process.  For use by toplev::finalize.  */
+
+void
+ipa_sra_cc_finalize (void)
+{
+  if (func_sums)
+    ggc_delete (func_sums);
+  func_sums = NULL;
+  delete call_sums;
+  call_sums = NULL;
+}
 
 #include "gt-ipa-sra.h"
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-utils.h b/gcc/ipa-utils.h
index 0eefcf40d44..5f1e6601ff8 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-utils.h
+++ b/gcc/ipa-utils.h
@@ -57,6 +57,13 @@ bool ipa_make_function_pure (cgraph_node *, bool, bool);
 
 /* In ipa-profile.cc  */
 bool ipa_propagate_frequency (struct cgraph_node *node);
+void ipa_profile_cc_finalize (void);
+
+/* In ipa-icf.cc  */
+void ipa_icf_cc_finalize (void);
+
+/* In ipa-sra.cc  */
+void ipa_sra_cc_finalize (void);
 
 /* In ipa-devirt.cc  */
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h
index e762563f9bd..73ecd0329a0 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h
@@ -377,6 +377,10 @@
 #undef create_code
 #undef verify_code
 
+/* test-ggc-bugfix.c: We don't use this once, since the use of
+   gcc_jit_context_add_command_line_option and
+   gcc_jit_context_add_driver_option affects the whole context.  */
+
 /* Now expose the individual testcases as instances of this struct.  */
 
 struct testcase
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..59eb374af8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-ggc-bugfix.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target x86_64-*-* } } */
+
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+#include "libgccjit.h"
+
+#include "harness.h"
+
+void
+create_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, void *user_data)
+{
+  gcc_jit_context_add_command_line_option (ctxt, "-flto");
+  gcc_jit_context_add_driver_option (ctxt, "-nostdlib");
+
+  gcc_jit_type *type_int = gcc_jit_context_get_type (ctxt, GCC_JIT_TYPE_INT);
+  gcc_jit_param *params_for_func_main[0] = {
+  };
+  gcc_jit_function *func_main =
+    gcc_jit_context_new_function (ctxt, NULL, GCC_JIT_FUNCTION_EXPORTED,
+                                  type_int, "main", 0, params_for_func_main,
+                                  0);
+  gcc_jit_block *block_start =
+    gcc_jit_function_new_block (func_main, "start");
+  gcc_jit_rvalue *rvalue__int_42 =
+    gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int (ctxt, type_int, 42);
+  gcc_jit_block_end_with_return (block_start, NULL, rvalue__int_42);
+}
+
+void
+verify_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, gcc_jit_result *result)
+{
+  CHECK_NON_NULL (result);
+}
diff --git a/gcc/toplev.cc b/gcc/toplev.cc
index ae2f3d52602..41ee81f116c 100644
--- a/gcc/toplev.cc
+++ b/gcc/toplev.cc
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
 #include "symbol-summary.h"
 #include "tree-vrp.h"
 #include "ipa-prop.h"
+#include "ipa-utils.h"
 #include "gcse.h"
 #include "omp-offload.h"
 #include "edit-context.h"
@@ -2337,7 +2338,11 @@ toplev::finalize (void)
   ipa_fnsummary_cc_finalize ();
   ipa_modref_cc_finalize ();
   ipa_edge_modifications_finalize ();
+  ipa_icf_cc_finalize ();
 
+  ipa_prop_cc_finalize ();
+  ipa_profile_cc_finalize ();
+  ipa_sra_cc_finalize ();
   cgraph_cc_finalize ();
   cgraphunit_cc_finalize ();
   symtab_thunks_cc_finalize ();
-- 
2.42.1

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[David Malcolm]

On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Here's the updated patch.
> The failure was due to the test being in the test array while it
> should
> not have been there since it changes the context.

Thanks for the updated patch.

Did you do a full bootstrap and regression test with this one, or do
you want me to?

Dave

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[Antoni Boucher]

I'm not sure how to do this. I tried the following commands, but this
fails even on master:

../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
languages=c,jit,c++,fortran,objc,lto --enable-checking=release --
disable-werror --prefix=/opt/gcc

make bootstrap -j24
make -k check -j24

From what I can understand, the unexpected failures are in g++:

		=== g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes		72790
# of unexpected failures	1
# of expected failures		1011
# of unsupported tests		3503

		=== g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes		4750
# of unexpected failures	27
# of expected failures		16
# of unsupported tests		43


Am I doing something wrong?

On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 12:49 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > Here's the updated patch.
> > The failure was due to the test being in the test array while it
> > should
> > not have been there since it changes the context.
> 
> Thanks for the updated patch.
> 
> Did you do a full bootstrap and regression test with this one, or do
> you want me to?
> 
> Dave
> 

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[David Malcolm]

On Mon, 2023-12-11 at 19:20 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> I'm not sure how to do this. I tried the following commands, but this
> fails even on master:
> 
> ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> languages=c,jit,c++,fortran,objc,lto --enable-checking=release --
> disable-werror --prefix=/opt/gcc
> 
> make bootstrap -j24
> make -k check -j24
> 
> From what I can understand, the unexpected failures are in g++:
> 
>                 === g++ Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            72790
> # of unexpected failures        1
> # of expected failures          1011
> # of unsupported tests          3503
> 
>                 === g++ Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            4750
> # of unexpected failures        27
> # of expected failures          16
> # of unsupported tests          43
> 
> 
> Am I doing something wrong?

I normally do a pair of bootstrap/tests: a "control" build with a
pristine copy of the source tree, and an "experiment" build containing
the patch(s) of interest, then compare the results.  FWIW given that
each one takes 2 hours on my machine, I normally just do one control
build on a Monday, rebase all my working copies to that revision, and
then use that control build throughout the week for comparison when
testing patches.

I can have a go at testing an updated patch if you like; presumably the
latest version is this one:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638841.html
right?

Dave



> 
> On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 12:49 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > Here's the updated patch.
> > > The failure was due to the test being in the test array while it
> > > should
> > > not have been there since it changes the context.
> > 
> > Thanks for the updated patch.
> > 
> > Did you do a full bootstrap and regression test with this one, or
> > do
> > you want me to?
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[Antoni Boucher]

On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:19 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-12-11 at 19:20 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > I'm not sure how to do this. I tried the following commands, but
> > this
> > fails even on master:
> > 
> > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> > languages=c,jit,c++,fortran,objc,lto --enable-checking=release --
> > disable-werror --prefix=/opt/gcc
> > 
> > make bootstrap -j24
> > make -k check -j24
> > 
> > From what I can understand, the unexpected failures are in g++:
> > 
> >                 === g++ Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            72790
> > # of unexpected failures        1
> > # of expected failures          1011
> > # of unsupported tests          3503
> > 
> >                 === g++ Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            4750
> > # of unexpected failures        27
> > # of expected failures          16
> > # of unsupported tests          43
> > 
> > 
> > Am I doing something wrong?
> 
> I normally do a pair of bootstrap/tests: a "control" build with a
> pristine copy of the source tree, and an "experiment" build
> containing
> the patch(s) of interest, then compare the results.  FWIW given that
> each one takes 2 hours on my machine, I normally just do one control
> build on a Monday, rebase all my working copies to that revision, and
> then use that control build throughout the week for comparison when
> testing patches.
> 
> I can have a go at testing an updated patch if you like; presumably
> the
> latest version is this one:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638841.html
> right?

Thanks. I would appreciate if you do it.
Yes, this is the latest patch.

> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 12:49 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > Here's the updated patch.
> > > > The failure was due to the test being in the test array while
> > > > it
> > > > should
> > > > not have been there since it changes the context.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the updated patch.
> > > 
> > > Did you do a full bootstrap and regression test with this one, or
> > > do
> > > you want me to?
> > > 
> > > Dave
> > > 
> > 
> 

Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Fix GGC segfault when using -flto

[David Malcolm]

On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:27 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:19 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-12-11 at 19:20 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > I'm not sure how to do this. I tried the following commands, but
> > > this
> > > fails even on master:
> > > 
> > > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> > > languages=c,jit,c++,fortran,objc,lto --enable-checking=release --
> > > disable-werror --prefix=/opt/gcc
> > > 
> > > make bootstrap -j24
> > > make -k check -j24
> > > 
> > > From what I can understand, the unexpected failures are in g++:
> > > 
> > >                 === g++ Summary ===
> > > 
> > > # of expected passes            72790
> > > # of unexpected failures        1
> > > # of expected failures          1011
> > > # of unsupported tests          3503
> > > 
> > >                 === g++ Summary ===
> > > 
> > > # of expected passes            4750
> > > # of unexpected failures        27
> > > # of expected failures          16
> > > # of unsupported tests          43
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Am I doing something wrong?
> > 
> > I normally do a pair of bootstrap/tests: a "control" build with a
> > pristine copy of the source tree, and an "experiment" build
> > containing
> > the patch(s) of interest, then compare the results.  FWIW given
> > that
> > each one takes 2 hours on my machine, I normally just do one
> > control
> > build on a Monday, rebase all my working copies to that revision,
> > and
> > then use that control build throughout the week for comparison when
> > testing patches.
> > 
> > I can have a go at testing an updated patch if you like; presumably
> > the
> > latest version is this one:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638841.html
> > right?
> 
> Thanks. I would appreciate if you do it.
> Yes, this is the latest patch.

Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; the only
change in results was jit.sum's # of PASS results increased by
15, as expected.  No jit.sum failures, and no regressions elsewhere in
the testsuites.

I've pushed it to trunk as r14-7117-g8415bceea9d3ca.

Dave


> 
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 12:49 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > > Here's the updated patch.
> > > > > The failure was due to the test being in the test array while
> > > > > it
> > > > > should
> > > > > not have been there since it changes the context.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the updated patch.
> > > > 
> > > > Did you do a full bootstrap and regression test with this one,
> > > > or
> > > > do
> > > > you want me to?
> > > > 
> > > > Dave
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>