Re: "aligned" attribute with too-large argument
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2018 09:19 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large
for the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check.
The same applies to label alignment (from the -falign-labels switch).
The result is an ICE in my target code because it is asked to output
assembly language for an alignment not supported by the target.
Should these cases also produce error messages? Or should the back end
ignore attempts to align too much?
>>>
>>> check_user_alignment() in c-attribs.c rejects excessive alignments
>>> the same for functions and variables:
>>>
>>> else if (i >= HOST_BITS_PER_INT - LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT)
>>> {
>>>error ("requested alignment is too large");
>>>return -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> so I don't immediately see where this inconsistency comes from
>>> Is there different/more restrictive handling for variables in
>>> the back end? (a test case would be great).
>>
>> I forgot to attach it. Here it is.
>
> I don't see any errors with the test case on x86_64. In GDB I see
> the alignment for ag is 524288 and MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is 2147483648.
> What target do you see the error with?
>
> Martin
There are two related issues.
One is that GCC says the max alignment for variables on x86 is 32768
(MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is 32768). And it enforces that, for variables. But a
request to align a function to 65536 is permitted. Since the assembler doesn't
actually complain, no errors appear.
On pdp11, MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is 2. So in the test file I sent, the aligned(2)
entries are legal and the others are not. Since the target doesn't know how to
generate assembly code for alignment greater than 2, the overly aligned
function results in an ICE. But the overly aligned variables generate error
messages, as expected.
What I want is for function and label alignment to honor MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT.
The only alternative is to silently ignore excessive function alignment in the
target code.
paul
Re: "aligned" attribute with too-large argument
On 10/29/2018 09:19 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large for
the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check. The
same applies to label alignment (from the -falign-labels switch).
The result is an ICE in my target code because it is asked to output assembly
language for an alignment not supported by the target.
Should these cases also produce error messages? Or should the back end ignore
attempts to align too much?
check_user_alignment() in c-attribs.c rejects excessive alignments
the same for functions and variables:
else if (i >= HOST_BITS_PER_INT - LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT)
{
error ("requested alignment is too large");
return -1;
}
so I don't immediately see where this inconsistency comes from
Is there different/more restrictive handling for variables in
the back end? (a test case would be great).
I forgot to attach it. Here it is.
I don't see any errors with the test case on x86_64. In GDB I see
the alignment for ag is 524288 and MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is 2147483648.
What target do you see the error with?
Martin
Re: "aligned" attribute with too-large argument
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > ... > >> That said, attribute problems aren't handled perfectly consistently >> in GCC. Some result in errors, others in warnings, and some are >> silently ignored. I've been tracking the problems I notice in >> Bugzilla (those with "aligned" in their title are: 87524, 84185, >> 82914, 81566, 69502, 65055, 61939). In my view, silently ignoring >> problems without as much as a warning is a bug. But whether they >> should result in warnings or errors can be debated on a case by >> case basis. For instance, it might be appropriate to give >> an error when a negative alignment is specified but just a warning >> when the specified alignment is less than the minimum for the symbol >> for the target. For the case you mention I think an argument could >> be for either, but given the check_user_alignment handling I'd say >> an error would seem to be in line with the current practice. >> >> Martin > > Ok, I'll enter a PR. Done. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795 paul
Re: "aligned" attribute with too-large argument
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
>> applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large
>> for the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check.
>> The same applies to label alignment (from the -falign-labels switch).
>>
>> The result is an ICE in my target code because it is asked to output
>> assembly language for an alignment not supported by the target.
>>
>> Should these cases also produce error messages? Or should the back end
>> ignore attempts to align too much?
>
> check_user_alignment() in c-attribs.c rejects excessive alignments
> the same for functions and variables:
>
> else if (i >= HOST_BITS_PER_INT - LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT)
> {
> error ("requested alignment is too large");
> return -1;
> }
>
> so I don't immediately see where this inconsistency comes from
> Is there different/more restrictive handling for variables in
> the back end? (a test case would be great).
I forgot to attach it. Here it is.
paul
testalign.c
Description: Binary data
Re: "aligned" attribute with too-large argument
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
>> applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large
>> for the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check.
>> The same applies to label alignment (from the -falign-labels switch).
>>
>> The result is an ICE in my target code because it is asked to output
>> assembly language for an alignment not supported by the target.
>>
>> Should these cases also produce error messages? Or should the back end
>> ignore attempts to align too much?
>
> check_user_alignment() in c-attribs.c rejects excessive alignments
> the same for functions and variables:
>
> else if (i >= HOST_BITS_PER_INT - LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT)
>{
> error ("requested alignment is too large");
> return -1;
>}
Yes, but that code merely verifies that the requested alignment can be
represented on the host doing the compiling.
> so I don't immediately see where this inconsistency comes from
> Is there different/more restrictive handling for variables in
> the back end? (a test case would be great).
The error I get for variables comes from varasm.c, align_variable:
if (align > MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT)
{
error ("alignment of %q+D is greater than maximum object "
"file alignment %d", decl,
MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT/BITS_PER_UNIT);
align = MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT;
}
There are some other references to MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT, but they all seem to be
related to variables. I would think that the same check should also be applied
to other objects that are mentioned in the output file, specifically code
(functions and labels).
I'll attach a test case. On Intel, the max alignment is 32768 so the
declaration of variable "ag" fails on the above error check. But if I comment
out that line, the function alignment is silently accepted and generates the
corresponding assembly file directive (".align 16"). And the assembler accepts
that because apparently 64k alignment IS allowed...
> That said, attribute problems aren't handled perfectly consistently
> in GCC. Some result in errors, others in warnings, and some are
> silently ignored. I've been tracking the problems I notice in
> Bugzilla (those with "aligned" in their title are: 87524, 84185,
> 82914, 81566, 69502, 65055, 61939). In my view, silently ignoring
> problems without as much as a warning is a bug. But whether they
> should result in warnings or errors can be debated on a case by
> case basis. For instance, it might be appropriate to give
> an error when a negative alignment is specified but just a warning
> when the specified alignment is less than the minimum for the symbol
> for the target. For the case you mention I think an argument could
> be for either, but given the check_user_alignment handling I'd say
> an error would seem to be in line with the current practice.
>
> Martin
Ok, I'll enter a PR.
paul
Re: "aligned" attribute with too-large argument
On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large for
the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check. The
same applies to label alignment (from the -falign-labels switch).
The result is an ICE in my target code because it is asked to output assembly
language for an alignment not supported by the target.
Should these cases also produce error messages? Or should the back end ignore
attempts to align too much?
check_user_alignment() in c-attribs.c rejects excessive alignments
the same for functions and variables:
else if (i >= HOST_BITS_PER_INT - LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT)
{
error ("requested alignment is too large");
return -1;
}
so I don't immediately see where this inconsistency comes from
Is there different/more restrictive handling for variables in
the back end? (a test case would be great).
That said, attribute problems aren't handled perfectly consistently
in GCC. Some result in errors, others in warnings, and some are
silently ignored. I've been tracking the problems I notice in
Bugzilla (those with "aligned" in their title are: 87524, 84185,
82914, 81566, 69502, 65055, 61939). In my view, silently ignoring
problems without as much as a warning is a bug. But whether they
should result in warnings or errors can be debated on a case by
case basis. For instance, it might be appropriate to give
an error when a negative alignment is specified but just a warning
when the specified alignment is less than the minimum for the symbol
for the target. For the case you mention I think an argument could
be for either, but given the check_user_alignment handling I'd say
an error would seem to be in line with the current practice.
Martin
