This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Bernd Edlinger
<> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:18:30, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> As per my previous comments on this patch, I will not approve the
>> changes to the m32c backend, as they will cause real bugs in real
>> hardware, and violate the hardware's ABI. The user may use
>> -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields if they do not desire this behavior and
>> understand the consequences.
>> I am not a maintainer for the rx and h8300 ports, but they are in the
>> same situation.
>> To reiterate my core position: if the user defines a proper "volatile
>> int" bitfield, and the compiler does anything other than an int-sized
>> access, the compiler is WRONG. Any optimization that changes volatile
>> accesses to something other than what the user specified is a bug that
>> needs to be fixed before this option can be non-default.
> hmm, I just tried to use the latest 4.9 trunk to compile the example from
> the AAPCS document:
> struct s
> {
>   volatile int a:8;
>   volatile char b:2;
> };
> struct s ss;
> int
> main ()
> {
>   ss.a=1;
>   ss.b=1;
>   return 0;
> }
> and the resulting code is completely against the written AAPCS specification:
> main:
>         @ Function supports interworking.
>         @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
>         @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
>         @ link register save eliminated.
>         ldr     r3, .L2
>         ldrh    r2, [r3]
>         bic     r2, r2, #254
>         orr     r2, r2, #1
>         strh    r2, [r3]        @ movhi
>         ldrh    r2, [r3]
>         bic     r2, r2, #512
>         orr     r2, r2, #256
>         strh    r2, [r3]        @ movhi
>         mov     r0, #0
>         bx      lr
> two half-word accesses, to my total surprise!
> As it looks like, the -fstrict-volatile-bitfields are already totally broken,
> apparently in favour of the C++ memory model, at least at the write-side.

Note that the C++ memory model restricts the _maximum_ memory region
we may touch - it does not constrain the minimum as AAPCS does.

What I would suggest is to have a -fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields
(or two levels of it) enabled by default on AAPCS targets which will
follow the AAPCS if it doesn't violate the maximum memory region
constraints of the C++ memory model.

I never claimed that the C++ memory model is good enough for AAPCS
but there was consensus that the default on AAPCS should not violate
the C++ memory model by default.

-fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields should be fully implementable in
get_best_mode if you pass down the desired AAPCS mode.


> These are aligned accesses, not the packed structures, that was the
> only case where it used to work once.
> This must be fixed. I do not understand why we cannot agree, that
> at least the bug-fix part of Sandra's patch needs to be applied.
> Regards
> Bernd.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]