Bug 54900 - write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model (2)
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model (2)
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: rtl-optimization (show other bugs)
Version: 4.8.0
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords: wrong-code
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-10-11 11:06 UTC by Francesco Zappa Nardelli
Modified: 2024-03-26 23:39 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed: 2012-10-14 00:00:00


Attachments
reduced testcase (215 bytes, text/x-csrc)
2012-10-14 12:51 UTC, Aldy Hernandez
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-10-11 11:06:59 UTC
This program:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>

int g_8 = 1;
int g_140;
int *g_139 = &g_140;
int **g_138 = &g_139;
int g_182;

void func_2 (p1) {
  **g_138 = 0;
}

int func_11 (int p1, int p2, int p3, int p4) {
  if (g_8)
    return 0;
  ++g_182;
  return 0;
}

void *context (void *ptr) {
  g_182 = 1;
  printf ("%d\n",g_182);
}

void main () {
  pthread_t thread1;
  int  iret1;
  iret1 = pthread_create( &thread1, NULL, context, (void*) 0);

  func_2 (func_11 (0, 0, 0, 0) );

  pthread_join( thread1, NULL);
}

is miscompiled by gcc --param allow-store-data-races=0 -O2 (or -O3) on x86_64.

[ gcc version 4.8.0 20121011 (experimental) (GCC) ]

The program has no data-races because the ++g_182 instruction in func_11 is never executed by the main thread, and the context thread is expected to always print 1.

The -O2 and -O3 optimisers (invoked with --param allow-store-data-races=0) compile main as:

main:
        subq    $24, %rsp
        xorl    %ecx, %ecx
        xorl    %esi, %esi
        leaq    8(%rsp), %rdi
        movl    $context, %edx
        call    pthread_create

        xorl    %eax, %eax
        cmpl    $1, g_8(%rip)
        movq    8(%rsp), %rdi
        setb    %al
(**)    addl    %eax, g_182(%rip)
        movq    g_138(%rip), %rax

        xorl    %esi, %esi
        movq    (%rax), %rax
        movl    $0, (%rax)
        call    pthread_join
        addq    $24, %rsp
        ret

The problem is in the (**) instruction:

      addl    %eax, g_182(%rip)

which inserts a write of the value 0 in the run-time trace of the main thread, possibly resulting in the context thread printing 0.
Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-11 11:59:14 UTC
This is ifcvt.c in action.
This is the if (!set_b && MEM_P (orig_x)) case where we already do some checks:
if (noce_mem_write_may_trap_or_fault_p (orig_x)) return FALSE; and
if (!noce_can_store_speculate_p (test_bb, orig_x)) return FALSE;
I'd say noce_can_store_speculate_p is buggy, it uses
          if (memory_modified_in_insn_p (mem, insn))
            return true;
but memory_modified_in_insn_p is pessimistic, it doesn't tell whether mem is surely set, but whether it might be set.  I guess it would need to use note_stores that would just do rtx_equal_p on the addresses or similarly prove it is surely (and unconditionally) written.  So even note_stores might not be the right thing, perhaps just looking at single_set SET_DEST.  And avoiding inline asm, that doesn't have to store unconditionally.
Comment 2 Aldy Hernandez 2012-10-14 12:51:15 UTC
Created attachment 28444 [details]
reduced testcase
Comment 3 Aldy Hernandez 2012-10-17 20:59:43 UTC
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Oct 17 20:59:40 2012
New Revision: 192548

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192548
Log:
	PR rtl-optimization/54900
	* ifcvt.c (noce_can_store_speculate_p): Call
	memory_must_be_modified_in_insn_p.
	* alias.c (memory_must_be_modified_in_insn_p): New.
	(set_dest_equal_p): New.
	* rtl.h (memory_must_be_modified_in_p): Protoize.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/alias.c
    trunk/gcc/ifcvt.c
    trunk/gcc/rtl.h
Comment 4 Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-10-18 13:39:30 UTC
gcc version 4.8.0 20121018 (experimental) - which includes revision 192548 - compiles this example correctly.  

It also fixes http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54906 .

Great, thanks.
Comment 5 Aldy Hernandez 2012-10-18 23:46:04 UTC
I am leaving this PR open while I address the corner case presented by Jakub somewhere in this thread:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01763.html

...though technically the testcase in this PR has been fixed :).
Comment 6 Steven Bosscher 2013-05-29 20:24:45 UTC
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #5)
> I am leaving this PR open while I address the corner case presented by Jakub
> somewhere in this thread:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01763.html
> 
> ...though technically the testcase in this PR has been fixed :).

Maybe open a new PR for those corner cases, and put some test cases in
it?  Leaving this open without further reference to an actual problem
is confusing...