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, PR61776] verify_flow_info failed: control flow in the middle of basic block with -fprofile-generate

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Wei Mi <> wrote:
>> But fact is that it is _not_ necessary to split the block because there
>> are no outgoing abnormal edges from it.
>> The verifier failure is an artifact from using the same predicates during
>> CFG building and CFG verifying (usually ok, but for this particular
>> case it leads to this issue).
>> So I don't think your patch is the proper way to address this issue
>> (while it certainly works).
>> Instead whether a call can make abnormal gotos should be recorded
>> per-call and stored on the gimple-call.  Martin - this is exactly
>> one of the cases your patch would address?
> Thanks for the comment and thanks to Martin's patch. I try the patch.
> It works well to address both pr60449 and pr61776 after some
> extension. One extension is to replace GF_CALL_LEAF attribute using
> GF_CALL_NO_ABNORMAL_GOTO. That is because not only dropping "leaf"
> attribute in lto symbol merge could introduce the control flow
> verification problem in pr60449, dropping "const/pure" attributes
> could introduce the same problem too. It is unnecessary to introduce
> per-call attributes for all these three: ECF_LEAF/ECF_CONST/ECF_PURE,
> so GF_CALL_NO_ABNORMAL_GOTO is introduced to indicate that a call stmt
> has no abnormal goto.
> GF_CALL_NO_ABNORMAL_GOTO will be set according to gimple_call_flags()
> once gimple call stmt is created, then updated in execute_fixup_cfg
> and cleanup_tree_cfg.
> I posted the extended patch here. I didn't add the noreturn part in
> because it has no direct impact on pr60449 and pr61776. I can help
> Martin to test and post that part as an independent patch later.
> bootstrap and regression pass on x86_64-linux-gnu. Is it ok?

+static void
+update_no_abnormal_goto_attr (basic_block bb)
+  gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
+  for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
+    {

it should be enough to check these on last stmts of a basic block, no?

That you call update_no_abnormal_goto_attr from two places
before cleanup_tree_cfg_bb suggests you may want to perform
this change in cleanup_control_flow_bb which already looks
at the last stmt only?

Btw, I originally had this whole idea of moving flags to the gimple
stmt level because of the "interesting" way we handle the noreturn
attribute (calls to noreturn functions also end basic-blocks).

Thus would it be possible to turn all these into a single flag,
GF_CALL_CTRL_ALTERING?  That is, cover everything
that is_ctrl_altering_stmt covers?  I suggest we initialize it at
CFG build time and only ever clear it later.

Sorry for not thinking about this earlier (and for the slow review).


> Thanks,
> Wei.

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