[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |11.0 --- Comment #14 from Patrick Palka --- Fixed for GCC 11.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:573e5f0500968dcf4025b8fc0ae5fb367f9c70d9 commit r11-477-g573e5f0500968dcf4025b8fc0ae5fb367f9c70d9 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Mon May 18 23:50:32 2020 -0400 c++: Enable spec_hasher table sanitization [PR87847] It looks like hash table sanitization is now safe to enable for the decl_specializations and type_specializations tables, probably ever since PR94454 was fixed. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/87847 * pt.c (init_template_processing): Enable sanitization for decl_specializations and type_specializations.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11) > I posted a patch to enable sanitization for the spec_hasher tables for GCC > 11 here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545525.html > > With current trunk I wasn't able to reproduce any sanitization errors in the > testsuite or in other libraries even with a debugging patch similar to > Martin's (on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu). I suspect they have been fixed by the > patches for PR94454. Cool! Thank you Patrick for working on that.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=94454 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka --- I posted a patch to enable sanitization for the spec_hasher tables for GCC 11 here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545525.html With current trunk I wasn't able to reproduce any sanitization errors in the testsuite or in other libraries even with a debugging patch similar to Martin's (on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu). I suspect they have been fixed by the patches for PR94454.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Tue Jun 11 07:55:19 2019 New Revision: 272144 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272144=gcc=rev Log: Disable htable sanitization in pt.c (PR c++/87847). 2019-06-11 Martin Liska PR c++/87847 * hash-table.h: Extend create_gcc, add one parameter that is passed into hash_table::hash_table. 2019-06-11 Martin Liska PR c++/87847 * pt.c (init_template_processing): Disable hash table sanitization for decl_specializations and type_specializations. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c trunk/gcc/hash-table.h
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8) > So the issue is still present: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2019-06/msg00144.html > > I'm testing: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46387=diff right now So with patch I still see couple of ICEs remaining: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-template.C -std=c++14 (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-template.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-template.C -std=c++17 (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-template.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic98.C -std=c++17 (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic98.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/pr85569.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp2a/feat-cxx2a.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr46646.C -std=gnu++14 (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr46646.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) One reduced test-case: $ cat 1.ii template int operator"" _abc(); template <> int operator"" _abc(); $ ./xg++ -B. 1.ii -c hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value 1.ii:2:33: internal compiler error: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.h:1022 2 | template <> int operator"" _abc(); | ^ 0xaf623e hashtab_chk_error /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/hash-table.h:1022 0xb83ef9 hash_table::find_slot_with_hash(spec_entry* const&, unsigned int, insert_option) /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/hash-table.h:963 0xafe5d8 register_specialization /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:1566 0xb05860 check_explicit_specialization(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, int, tree_node*) /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:3237 0x9aa99d grokfndecl /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c:9218 0x9b6999 grokdeclarator(cp_declarator const*, cp_decl_specifier_seq*, decl_context, int, tree_node**) /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c:12803 0x9993f2 start_decl(cp_declarator const*, cp_decl_specifier_seq*, int, tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node**) /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c:5062 0xab7026 cp_parser_init_declarator /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:20357 0xac6cab cp_parser_single_declaration /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:28244 0xab0ff7 cp_parser_explicit_specialization /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:17304 0xaa9bc8 cp_parser_declaration /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13168 0xaa9ef4 cp_parser_toplevel_declaration /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13251 0xa9719a cp_parser_translation_unit /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:4690 0xaee97d c_parse_file() /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:41176 0xcb3987 c_common_parse_file() /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:1156 I'm planning to disable the sanitization of the 2 hash tables now. @Jason: can you please take a look at the remaining test-cases?
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- So the issue is still present: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2019-06/msg00144.html I'm testing: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46387=diff right now
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- Apparently, this is not an issue any longer.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2019-06-05 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 46387 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46387=edit patch to ignore type_canonical for TTP Does this work better?
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Or maybe just
>
> @@ -1879,6 +1888,9 @@ iterative_hash_template_arg (tree arg, hashval_t val)
> return val;
>}
>
> +case TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM:
> + return val;
> +
> default:
>break;
> }
Thank you Marek for working on that. If I apply both my and your patches I've
got:
$ cat ba.ii
template < typename > struct A;
template < typename > class B { public: typedef int value_type; typedef
int pointer; typedef int reference; typedef int const_reference; typedef
long size_type; typedef long difference_type; typedef int iterator; };
template < typename _Tp > class _Bitmap_counter { typedef B< A< _Tp > >
_BPVector; typedef typename _BPVector::size_type _Index_type; typedef _Tp
pointer; public: _Bitmap_counter(_BPVector); };
B< long > a;
template < typename > class bitmap_allocator { typedef long size_type;
typedef long difference_type; typedef int pointer; struct _Alloc_block;
typedef A< _Alloc_block * > _Block_pair; typedef B< _Block_pair > _BPVector;
static _BPVector b; static _Bitmap_counter< _Alloc_block * > d; };
template < typename _Tp > _Bitmap_counter< typename bitmap_allocator< _Tp
>::_Alloc_block * > bitmap_allocator< _Tp >::d(b);
template class B< A< bitmap_allocator< wchar_t >::_Alloc_block * > >;
template class bitmap_allocator< char >;
$ /home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/objdir/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/objdir/./gcc ba.ii
ba.ii: In instantiation of
‘_Bitmap_counter::_Alloc_block*>
bitmap_allocator::d’:
ba.ii:8:17: required from here
ba.ii:6:127: internal compiler error: in instantiate_decl, at cp/pt.c:24494
6 | template < typename _Tp > _Bitmap_counter< typename bitmap_allocator<
_Tp >::_Alloc_block * > bitmap_allocator< _Tp >::d(b);
|
^
0x9a3dea instantiate_decl(tree_node*, bool, bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:24493
0x8e1cf3 mark_used(tree_node*, int)
../../gcc/cp/decl2.c:5561
0x9aca07 tsubst_copy
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:15714
0x997e37 tsubst_copy
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:15534
0x997e37 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool,
bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:19483
0x999f64 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool,
bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:19606
0x99ae44 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool,
bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:19244
0x9a7348 tsubst_copy_and_build(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool,
bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:18248
0x9a7348 tsubst_expr(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:17924
0x9aaae4 tsubst_expr(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*, bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:17015
0x9aaae4 tsubst_init
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:15493
0x9a27d1 regenerate_decl_from_template
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:24163
0x9a27d1 instantiate_decl(tree_node*, bool, bool)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:24707
0x9bc031 do_type_instantiation(tree_node*, tree_node*, int)
../../gcc/cp/pt.c:24024
0x975f37 cp_parser_explicit_instantiation
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:17206
0x9785b1 cp_parser_declaration
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:13190
0x978c9f cp_parser_translation_unit
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:4701
0x978c9f c_parse_file()
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:41181
0xa82ce0 c_common_parse_file()
../../gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:1156
$ g++-8 ba.ii -c
[OK]
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Or maybe just @@ -1879,6 +1888,9 @@ iterative_hash_template_arg (tree arg, hashval_t val) return val; } +case TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM: + return val; + default: break; }
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- An idea would be to hash TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARMs differently in iterative_hash_template_arg: hash its TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM_INDEX and TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM_TEMPLATE_DECL, so that when they compare equal, they hash equal.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- In the ttp23.C testcase we're comparing B and B. In one case the template argument is >> and the other is >> same_type_p says they're same, so comp_template_args returns true. One of the template_template_parms has TYPE_CANONICAL, so we hash it as: 1905 if (TYPE_CANONICAL (arg)) 1906 return iterative_hash_object (TYPE_HASH (TYPE_CANONICAL (arg)), 1907 val); but the other type doesn't have a canonical type: 1910 /* Otherwise just compare the types during lookup. */ 1911 return val; so the hashes end up being different.
[Bug c++/87847] spec_hasher::hash does not match with spec_hasher::equal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- May I please ping this? I would like to finish the hast table sanitization patch in this stage1.
