[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- I think this is a Fortran reproducer that does not depend on printing to stdout: program crash implicit none real :: a a = 1. call sub() contains subroutine sub() character(len=100) :: s real :: x write(s,*) a read(s,*) x if (x /= 1.) stop 1 end subroutine sub end program crash It fails for me with trunk (before patch), but passed with 11.2.0 Could it be added to the testsuite please?
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 --- Comment #12 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- > Even trying to find a Fortran testsuite friendly version is hard because the > issue can only happen with print, I tried even doing internal write to a > string > it is passing without any changes. Yep, any reads that happen in the code visible to compiler will prevent the bug from happening. It is a hard case - but as I said I think there is quite low chance of it going back.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7) > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6) > > > I would welcome a testuite friendly version of the fortran testcase > > Both Andrew and I failed to make a C reproducer - what about just taking the > -fdump-tree-gimple, as input would that work ? Even trying to find a Fortran testsuite friendly version is hard because the issue can only happen with print, I tried even doing internal write to a string it is passing without any changes.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- Fixed.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fcbf94a5be9e0c1ecad92da773a6632b86b7f70a commit r12-6067-gfcbf94a5be9e0c1ecad92da773a6632b86b7f70a Author: Jan Hubicka Date: Sun Dec 19 22:28:40 2021 +0100 Fix early exit in modref_merge_call_site_flags When adding support for static chain and return slot flags I forgot to update early exit condition in modref_merge_call_site_flags. This yields to wrong code as demonstrated by the Fortran testcase attached to PR (which I hope someone will help me to turn into testuite one). gcc/ChangeLog: 2021-12-19 Jan Hubicka PR ipa/103766 * ipa-modref.c (modref_merge_call_site_flags): Fix early exit condition
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 --- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- > > I would welcome a testuite friendly version of the fortran testcase > > Both Andrew and I failed to make a C reproducer - what about just taking the > -fdump-tree-gimple, as input would that work ? Me too. The testcase depends on fnspec annotations produced by Fortran so we get both noescape and noread to trigger the wrong code. I guess we may try to feed fnspec to gimple frontend but I am not even sure it is possible, since fnspec is internal attribute I suppose we can also live without a testcase - I hope I will not do again such a stupid oversight.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 --- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6) > I would welcome a testuite friendly version of the fortran testcase Both Andrew and I failed to make a C reproducer - what about just taking the -fdump-tree-gimple, as input would that work ?
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- This is yet another stupid early exit in the propagation code (next stage1 i guess I will want to go through them and make it more systematic - those originate from quite early versions of modref when it was easier to rule out cases where propagation is no longer useful) I would welcome a testuite friendly version of the fortran testcase diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref.c b/gcc/ipa-modref.c index d3590f0b62b..7152d66c251 100644 --- a/gcc/ipa-modref.c +++ b/gcc/ipa-modref.c @@ -5020,8 +5020,14 @@ modref_merge_call_site_flags (escape_summary *sum, bool ignore_stores = ignore_stores_p (caller, callee_ecf_flags); /* If we have no useful info to propagate. */ - if ((!cur_summary || !cur_summary->arg_flags.length ()) - && (!cur_summary_lto || !cur_summary_lto->arg_flags.length ())) + if ((!cur_summary + || (!cur_summary->arg_flags.length () + && !cur_summary->static_chain_flags + && !cur_summary->retslot_flags)) + && (!cur_summary_lto + || (!cur_summary_lto->arg_flags.length () + && !cur_summary_lto->static_chain_flags + && !cur_summary_lto->retslot_flags))) return false; FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (sum->esc, i, ee)
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- There seems to be wrong no_direct_read flag on the static chain parameter comming out of the ipa propagation. I will take a look.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Host association is fundamental to Fortran. This has worked for 20 years. Looks like a P1 issue.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2021-12-19 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- -fno-ipa-modref fixes the issue though. I can't figure out why the store to the frame is being removed.
[Bug ipa/103766] [12 Regression] Initialization of variable passed via static chain is lost.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103766
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I tried to reproduce it with the following GNU C code but it still
worked:struct __st_parameter_dt
{
const char *filename ;
int linenum;
int flags;
int unit;
};
[[gnu::noinline, gnu::access(read_only, 1), gnu::access(read_only, 2, 3),
gnu::noclone, gnu::leaf]]
void print(struct __st_parameter_dt *b, void *a, int);
[[gnu::noinline, gnu::access(read_only, 1), gnu::noclone, gnu::leaf]]
void print1(struct __st_parameter_dt *b);
[[gnu::noinline, gnu::access(read_only, 1), gnu::noclone, gnu::leaf]]
void print2(struct __st_parameter_dt *b);
int main(void)
{
double a;
a = 1;
[[gnu::noinline]]
void f()
{
struct __st_parameter_dt b;
b.filename = "a.c";
b.linenum = 20;
b.flags =128;
b.unit = 1;
print1();
print(, , sizeof(a));
print2();
}
f();
}
