Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
Hello, Here is another version of fix. This time, I added complete_type_or_else call just before aggregate_value_p. Bootstraped and tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no new regressions. Ok to apply to trunk? Thanks, Dinar. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/07/2014 03:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: I guess we need to call complete_type before aggregate_value_p. complete_type_or_else, actually. Jason 2014-04-18 Dinar Temirbulatov dtemirbula...@gmail.com PR c++/57958 * semantics.c (apply_deduced_return_type): Complete non-void type before estimating whether the type is aggregate. fix.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
I found typo in the testcase header, fixed. Ok to apply to trunk? thanks, Dinar. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov dtemirbula...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Here is another version of fix. This time, I added complete_type_or_else call just before aggregate_value_p. Bootstraped and tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no new regressions. Ok to apply to trunk? Thanks, Dinar. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/07/2014 03:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: I guess we need to call complete_type before aggregate_value_p. complete_type_or_else, actually. Jason 2014-04-18 Dinar Temirbulatov dtemirbula...@gmail.com PR c++/57958 * semantics.c (apply_deduced_return_type): Complete non-void type before estimating whether the type is aggregate. fix.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
On 04/18/2014 08:53 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: + if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE(result)) != VOID_TYPE) Space after TREE_TYPE. OK with that change. Jason
Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
Hi, On 18 aprile 2014 17:20:40 CEST, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/18/2014 08:53 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: + if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE(result)) != VOID_TYPE) Space after TREE_TYPE. OK with that change. I'm traveling and I can't really check, but I seem to remember that we do have a VOID_TYPE_P. Paolo
Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
On 04/18/2014 11:39 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: I'm traveling and I can't really check, but I seem to remember that we do have a VOID_TYPE_P. True, I suppose that would be preferable. Jason
[Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
Hi,
I revised the patch from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00083.html.
This change fixes PR57958 (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57958)
For this code:
auto fn = [] (const FooData x) {
return (x);
};
{
FooData a;
fn(a);
}
Current version of trunk generates following gimple:
main(int, char**)::lambda(const FooData) (const struct __lambda0
* const __closure, const struct Foo x)
{
struct Foo D.2089;
FooData::Foo (D.2089, x);
try
{
return retval;
}
finally
{
FooData::~Foo (D.2089);
D.2089 = {CLOBBER};
}
}
And after fix applied gimple product looks like this:
main(int, char**)::lambda(const FooData) (const struct __lambda0
* const __closure, const struct Foo x)
{
FooData::Foo (retval, x);
return retval;
}
looking at the code that I think caused the issue:
cp/typeck.c:8600
/* We can't initialize a register from a AGGR_INIT_EXPR. */
else if (! cfun-returns_struct
TREE_CODE (retval) == TARGET_EXPR
TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (retval, 1)) == AGGR_INIT_EXPR)
retval = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (retval), retval,
TREE_OPERAND (retval, 0));
It is not clear to me the propose of constructing COMPOUND_EXPR here,
comment says: We can't initialize a register from a AGGR_INIT_EXPR.,
but how on the front-end side we could determine what is going to end
up in a register and what is not? The code looks like a hack for some
middle-end issue awhile back? I hoped to trigger any code generation
problem by removing the code and testing regression testsuite on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, but no regression have occured. Attached patch
was tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no new regressions. Ok to apply
to trunk?
Thanks in advance, Dinar.
PR57958.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
On 04/07/2014 12:56 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
/* We can't initialize a register from a AGGR_INIT_EXPR. */
else if (! cfun-returns_struct
TREE_CODE (retval) == TARGET_EXPR
TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (retval, 1)) == AGGR_INIT_EXPR)
retval = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (retval), retval,
TREE_OPERAND (retval, 0));
That code is extremely ancient. I agree that it seems kind of useless,
but the fact that we're hitting it indicates a bug: cfun-returns_struct
should have been set by apply_deduced_return_type. I guess we need to
call complete_type before aggregate_value_p. Let's fix that now, and
then remove this chunk of code after 4.9 branches.
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr57958.C
The cpp1y directory is for C++14 tests; C++11 tests should go in cpp0x.
Perhaps we should rename the directories. :)
+// { dg-options -std=c++11 }
+// { dg-do run }
Please use { dg-do run { target c++11 } } rather than specify -std in
dg-options.
Jason
Re: [Ping] [Patch C++] RFC Fix PR57958
On 04/07/2014 03:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: I guess we need to call complete_type before aggregate_value_p. complete_type_or_else, actually. Jason
