[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |8.5 --- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a34c19926b87f9cadd5ea84f5c5b93ae76b14558 commit r8-10855-ga34c19926b87f9cadd5ea84f5c5b93ae76b14558 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Wed Oct 7 10:49:00 2020 -0400 c++: Distinguish alignof and __alignof__ in cp_tree_equal [PR97273] cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the testcase below, this causes the second static_assert to fail on targets where alignof(double) != __alignof__(double) because the specialization table (which uses cp_tree_equal as its equality predicate) conflates the two dependent specializations integral_constant<__alignof__(T)> and integral_constant. This patch makes cp_tree_equal distinguish between these two operators by inspecting the ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P flag. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * tree.c (cp_tree_equal) : Return false if ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P differ. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * g++.dg/template/alignof3.C: New test. (cherry picked from commit 592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8)
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a3bf6ce7f2e17f2c977c13df23eb718e7b433dcd commit r11-7921-ga3bf6ce7f2e17f2c977c13df23eb718e7b433dcd Author: Patrick Palka Date: Tue Mar 30 22:57:11 2021 -0400 c++: Adjust mangling of __alignof__ [PR88115] r11-4926 made __alignof__ get mangled differently from alignof, encoding __alignof__ as a vendor extended operator. But this mangling is problematic for the reasons mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115#c6. This patch changes our mangling of __alignof__ to instead use the new "vendor extended expression" syntax that's proposed in https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/112. Clang does the same thing already, so after this patch Clang and GCC agree about the mangling of __alignof__(type) and __alignof__(expr). gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * mangle.c (write_expression): Adjust the mangling of __alignof__. include/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * demangle.h (enum demangle_component_type): Add DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_VENDOR_EXPR. libiberty/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * cp-demangle.c (d_dump, d_make_comp, d_expression_1) (d_count_templates_scopes): Handle DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_VENDOR_EXPR. (d_print_comp_inner): Likewise. : Revert r11-4926 change. : Likewise. * testsuite/demangle-expected: Adjust __alignof__ tests. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof7.C: Adjust expected mangling.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to James Y Knight from comment #10) > Seeing as GCC is now in Stage 4 before the next release, I'd like to ping > this bug. > > Should the priority be upgraded? I think fixing this so that GCC doesn't use > 'v111__alignof__' should be considered a release-blocker: either the > mangling change should be reverted to the previous behavior, or fixed. Yes, thanks for the ping. I'll work on a patch for GCC 11 to follow suit, so that Clang and GCC do the same thing. > > FWIW, the change to clang has been committed, and is planned to be in the > upcoming Clang 12 release > (https://reviews.llvm.org/rG9c7aeaebb3ac1b94200b59b111742cb6b8f090c2)
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #10 from James Y Knight --- Seeing as GCC is now in Stage 4 before the next release, I'd like to ping this bug. Should the priority be upgraded? I think fixing this so that GCC doesn't use 'v111__alignof__' should be considered a release-blocker: either the mangling change should be reverted to the previous behavior, or fixed. FWIW, the change to clang has been committed, and is planned to be in the upcoming Clang 12 release (https://reviews.llvm.org/rG9c7aeaebb3ac1b94200b59b111742cb6b8f090c2)
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #9 from James Y Knight --- Proposed patch posted for the itanium-cxx-abi: https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/pull/115/files using the syntax: u * E And to Clang, to use that syntax: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93922 I hope both GCC and Clang can do the same thing here.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Thanks for starting the discussion there.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #7 from James Y Knight --- I've created an ABI proposal against itanium abi, here: https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/112 I realized since writing my last comment here that ::= u [] # vendor extended type has been added a few months ago. Therefore, nothing needs to be added to support extended expressions as . And, therefore, since 'u' is also free in expression, I've proposed to simply add the same 'u' syntax to "expression", rather than using "Y", as per previous comment. That is: ::= u [] # vendor extended expression
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #6 from James Y Knight --- > c++: Change the mangling of __alignof__ [PR88115] The new mangling chosen for __alignof__(type) seems problematic, and I think this commit ought to be reverted until a new mangling scheme has been chosen. At the very least, both __alignof__(expression) and __alignof__(type) can't both be encoded as "v111__alignof__", with no indication of whether the argument is a type or an expression, because that's ambiguous. Possibly it'd be okay to use v112__alignof__z and v112__alignof__t, similar to how "az" and "at" are used for standard alignof expression/type. That solves the ambiguity. But -- this violates the generic grammar, which doesn't allow for a vendor operator to take type arguments at all. ::= v ::= Now...possibly it's okay to violate that and pass a type, regardless. But, then the demangler needs to know what every vendor extension operator's semantics are in order to demangle -- which seems against the intent of the standardized "vendor operator" syntax. So, that's not great. This seems like a problem which may be worth solving properly and generally in the itanium ABI -- maybe now's the time to actually do this? (Fixing this would allow __typeof__, __builtin_convertvector, and __builtin_offsetof to be mangleable too...) See also PR13740 and PR11078, for earlier (MUCH earlier!) discussion of possible mangling syntax extensions for this sort of thing. Unfortunately, it never went anywhere... ISTM that the most promising proposal in those earlier threads was to add a "Y" to both type and expression expansions. To support vendor-specific builtins which returns a type, and can take types or expressions as arguments (e.g. typeof), add: ::= Y + E To support vendor-specific builtins which return a value, and can take types or expressions as arguments (e.g. __builtin_offsetof, or __alignof__): ::= Y + E
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9df05884b3a30d32744a070d3fc5780b7323231a commit r9-9043-g9df05884b3a30d32744a070d3fc5780b7323231a Author: Patrick Palka Date: Wed Oct 7 10:49:00 2020 -0400 c++: Distinguish alignof and __alignof__ in cp_tree_equal [PR97273] cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the testcase below, this causes the second static_assert to fail on targets where alignof(double) != __alignof__(double) because the specialization table (which uses cp_tree_equal as its equality predicate) conflates the two dependent specializations integral_constant<__alignof__(T)> and integral_constant. This patch makes cp_tree_equal distinguish between these two operators by inspecting the ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P flag. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * tree.c (cp_tree_equal) : Return false if ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P differ. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * g++.dg/template/alignof3.C: New test. (cherry picked from commit 592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8)
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61827d5d9a5a09a8c05d5e41f95b03ebc6c43f61 commit r11-4925-g61827d5d9a5a09a8c05d5e41f95b03ebc6c43f61 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Wed Nov 11 14:43:39 2020 -0500 c++: Correct the handling of alignof(expr) [PR88115] We're currently neglecting to set the ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P flag on an ALIGNOF_EXPR when its operand is an expression. This leads to us handling alignof(expr) as if it were written __alignof__(expr), and returning the preferred alignment instead of the ABI alignment. In the testcase below, this causes the first and third static_assert to fail on x86. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * cp-tree.h (cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr): Add bool parameter. * decl.c (fold_sizeof_expr): Pass false to cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr. * parser.c (cp_parser_unary_expression): Pass std_alignof to cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr. * pt.c (tsubst_copy): Pass false to cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr. (tsubst_copy_and_build): Pass std_alignof to cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr. * typeck.c (cxx_alignof_expr): Add std_alignof bool parameter and pass it to cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_type. Set ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P appropriately. (cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr): Add std_alignof bool parameter and pass it to cxx_alignof_expr. Assert op is either SIZEOF_EXPR or ALIGNOF_EXPR. libcc1/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * libcp1plugin.cc (plugin_build_unary_expr): Pass true to cxx_sizeof_or_alignof_expr. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof6.C: New test.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1c9b3c3408c1ec8043f9b9e1a148f84bb7f3b25 commit r11-4926-gb1c9b3c3408c1ec8043f9b9e1a148f84bb7f3b25 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Wed Nov 11 15:11:23 2020 -0500 c++: Change the mangling of __alignof__ [PR88115] This patch changes the mangling of __alignof__ to v111__alignof__, making its mangling distinct from that of alignof(type) and alignof(expr). How we mangle ALIGNOF_EXPR now depends on its ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P flag, which after the previous patch gets consistently set for alignof(type) as well as alignof(expr). gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * c-opts.c (c_common_post_options): Update latest_abi_version. gcc/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * common.opt (-fabi-version): Document =15. * doc/invoke.texi (C++ Dialect Options): Likewise. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * mangle.c (write_expression): Mangle __alignof_ differently from alignof when the ABI version is at least 15. libiberty/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * cp-demangle.c (d_print_comp_inner) : Don't print the "operator " prefix for __alignof__. : Always print parens around the operand of __alignof__. * testsuite/demangle-expected: Test demangling for __alignof__. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 * g++.dg/abi/macro0.C: Adjust. * g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof7.C: New test. * g++.dg/cpp0x/alignof8.C: New test.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aeb69dda51e93379fce10fb03ec57650fbf73f31 commit r10-8872-gaeb69dda51e93379fce10fb03ec57650fbf73f31 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Thu Oct 8 19:31:57 2020 -0400 c++: Distinguish alignof and __alignof__ in cp_tree_equal [PR97273] cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the testcase below, this causes the second static_assert to fail on targets where alignof(double) != __alignof__(double) because the specialization table (which uses cp_tree_equal as its equality predicate) conflates the two dependent specializations integral_constant<__alignof__(T)> and integral_constant. This patch makes cp_tree_equal distinguish between these two operators by inspecting the ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P flag. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * tree.c (cp_tree_equal) : Return false if ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P differ. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * g++.dg/template/alignof3.C: New test. (cherry picked from commit 592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8)
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8 commit r11-3704-g592fe221735bdaa375b1834dd49ce125d0b600d8 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Wed Oct 7 10:49:00 2020 -0400 c++: Distinguish alignof and __alignof__ in cp_tree_equal [PR97273] cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the testcase below, this causes the second static_assert to fail on targets where alignof(double) != __alignof__(double) because the specialization table (which uses cp_tree_equal as its equality predicate) conflates the two dependent specializations integral_constant<__alignof__(T)> and integral_constant. This patch makes cp_tree_equal distinguish between these two operators by inspecting the ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P flag. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * tree.c (cp_tree_equal) : Return false if ALIGNOF_EXPR_STD_P differ. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/88115 PR libstdc++/97273 * g++.dg/template/alignof3.C: New test.
[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=97273 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2020-10-05
