This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[PATCH] Fix ms_struct/-mms-bitfields structure layout (PR target/52991)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: JonY <10walls at gmail dot com>, Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, Daniel Santos <daniel dot santos at pobox dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:26:33 +0100
- Subject: [PATCH] Fix ms_struct/-mms-bitfields structure layout (PR target/52991)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Hi!
The following patch fixes the reported ms_struct/-mms-bitfields structure
layout issues from PR52991.
There are multiple issues, two of them introduced by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg01064.html -mms-bitfields
revamp from Eric and follow-up fix r114552, the rest has been introduced
later when the known_align < desired_align case has been enabled for the ms
bitfield layout.
The first 2 hunks fix alignment of packed non-bitfield fields, we can't
ignore all the alignment updates for them, just should use only
desired_align which takes DECL_PACKED into account, rather than
MAX (type_align, desired_align). Similarly, the last hunk in stor-layout.c
makes sure that for DECL_PACKED fields we use BITS_PER_UNIT alignment rather
than the type alignment.
The rest attempts to unbreak r184409 which enabled known_align < desired_align
case; doing that if rli->prev_field and ms layout is wrong, we first need to
deal with the bitfield packing and if we are within a bitfield word, we
shouldn't do any realignment, only in between them.
The patch reverts changes to bf-ms-layout{,-2}.c tests done in 2012, which
were done just to match the r184409 changes, and adds 2 new tests. All of
these 4 I've tested (slightly tweaked, so that it compiles with VC) with
the online VC compiler http://rextester.com/l/c_online_compiler_visual .
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2018-02-27 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR target/52991
* stor-layout.c (update_alignment_for_field): For
targetm.ms_bitfield_layout_p (rli->t), if !is_bitfield
&& !DECL_PACKED (field), do the alignment update, just use
only desired_align instead of MAX (type_align, desired_align)
as the alignment.
(place_field): Don't do known_align < desired_align handling
early if targetm.ms_bitfield_layout_p (rli->t) and rli->prev_field
is non-NULL, instead do it after rli->prev_field handling and
only if not within a bitfield word. For DECL_PACKED (field)
use type_align of BITS_PER_UNIT.
* gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout.c: Revert 2012-04-26 changes.
* gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-2.c: Revert 2012-02-23 changes.
* gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-4.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-5.c: New test.
--- gcc/stor-layout.c.jj 2018-02-22 14:35:33.135216198 +0100
+++ gcc/stor-layout.c 2018-02-27 18:56:26.906494801 +0100
@@ -1038,7 +1038,7 @@ update_alignment_for_field (record_layou
the type, except that for zero-size bitfields this only
applies if there was an immediately prior, nonzero-size
bitfield. (That's the way it is, experimentally.) */
- if ((!is_bitfield && !DECL_PACKED (field))
+ if (!is_bitfield
|| ((DECL_SIZE (field) == NULL_TREE
|| !integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field)))
? !DECL_PACKED (field)
@@ -1047,7 +1047,10 @@ update_alignment_for_field (record_layou
&& ! integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (rli->prev_field)))))
{
unsigned int type_align = TYPE_ALIGN (type);
- type_align = MAX (type_align, desired_align);
+ if (!is_bitfield && DECL_PACKED (field))
+ type_align = desired_align;
+ else
+ type_align = MAX (type_align, desired_align);
if (maximum_field_alignment != 0)
type_align = MIN (type_align, maximum_field_alignment);
rli->record_align = MAX (rli->record_align, type_align);
@@ -1303,7 +1306,9 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
/* Does this field automatically have alignment it needs by virtue
of the fields that precede it and the record's own alignment? */
- if (known_align < desired_align)
+ if (known_align < desired_align
+ && (! targetm.ms_bitfield_layout_p (rli->t)
+ || rli->prev_field == NULL))
{
/* No, we need to skip space before this field.
Bump the cumulative size to multiple of field alignment. */
@@ -1331,8 +1336,6 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
if (! TREE_CONSTANT (rli->offset))
rli->offset_align = desired_align;
- if (targetm.ms_bitfield_layout_p (rli->t))
- rli->prev_field = NULL;
}
/* Handle compatibility with PCC. Note that if the record has any
@@ -1448,6 +1451,8 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
/* This is a bitfield if it exists. */
if (rli->prev_field)
{
+ bool realign_p = known_align < desired_align;
+
/* If both are bitfields, nonzero, and the same size, this is
the middle of a run. Zero declared size fields are special
and handled as "end of run". (Note: it's nonzero declared
@@ -1481,7 +1486,10 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
rli->remaining_in_alignment = typesize - bitsize;
}
else
- rli->remaining_in_alignment -= bitsize;
+ {
+ rli->remaining_in_alignment -= bitsize;
+ realign_p = false;
+ }
}
else
{
@@ -1512,6 +1520,31 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
rli->prev_field = NULL;
}
+ /* Does this field automatically have alignment it needs by virtue
+ of the fields that precede it and the record's own alignment? */
+ if (realign_p)
+ {
+ /* If the alignment is still within offset_align, just align
+ the bit position. */
+ if (desired_align < rli->offset_align)
+ rli->bitpos = round_up (rli->bitpos, desired_align);
+ else
+ {
+ /* First adjust OFFSET by the partial bits, then align. */
+ tree d = size_binop (CEIL_DIV_EXPR, rli->bitpos,
+ bitsize_unit_node);
+ rli->offset = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, rli->offset,
+ fold_convert (sizetype, d));
+ rli->bitpos = bitsize_zero_node;
+
+ rli->offset = round_up (rli->offset,
+ desired_align / BITS_PER_UNIT);
+ }
+
+ if (! TREE_CONSTANT (rli->offset))
+ rli->offset_align = desired_align;
+ }
+
normalize_rli (rli);
}
@@ -1530,7 +1563,7 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
if (!DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE (field)
|| (prev_saved != NULL
? !simple_cst_equal (TYPE_SIZE (type), TYPE_SIZE (prev_type))
- : !integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field)) ))
+ : !integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field))))
{
/* Never smaller than a byte for compatibility. */
unsigned int type_align = BITS_PER_UNIT;
@@ -1555,7 +1588,8 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre
}
/* Now align (conventionally) for the new type. */
- type_align = TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (field));
+ if (! DECL_PACKED (field))
+ type_align = TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (field));
if (maximum_field_alignment != 0)
type_align = MIN (type_align, maximum_field_alignment);
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout.c.jj 2017-06-20 21:38:01.634906200 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout.c 2018-02-27 18:04:06.923851839 +0100
@@ -153,27 +153,27 @@ int main(){
struct ten test_ten;
#if defined (_TEST_MS_LAYOUT) || defined (_MSC_VER)
- size_t exp_sizeof_one = 8;
- size_t exp_sizeof_two = 12;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_one = 12;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_two = 16;
size_t exp_sizeof_three =6;
size_t exp_sizeof_four = 8;
size_t exp_sizeof_five = 3;
size_t exp_sizeof_six = 8;
size_t exp_sizeof_seven = 3;
- size_t exp_sizeof_eight = 2;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_eight = 4;
size_t exp_sizeof_nine = 8;
- size_t exp_sizeof_ten = 8;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_ten = 16;
- unsigned char exp_one_c = 7;
- unsigned char exp_two_c = 9;
+ unsigned char exp_one_c = 8;
+ unsigned char exp_two_c = 12;
unsigned char exp_three_c = 4;
unsigned char exp_four_c = 4;
char exp_five_c = 2;
char exp_six_c = 5;
char exp_seven_c = 2;
- char exp_eight_c = 1;
+ char exp_eight_c = 2;
char exp_nine_c = 0;
- char exp_ten_c = 1;
+ char exp_ten_c = 8;
#else /* testing -mno-ms-bitfields */
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-2.c.jj 2017-06-20 21:38:02.112900704 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-2.c 2018-02-27 18:04:06.923851839 +0100
@@ -158,27 +158,27 @@ int main(){
struct ten test_ten;
#if defined (_TEST_MS_LAYOUT) || defined (_MSC_VER)
- size_t exp_sizeof_one = 8;
- size_t exp_sizeof_two = 12;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_one = 12;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_two = 16;
size_t exp_sizeof_three =6;
size_t exp_sizeof_four = 8;
size_t exp_sizeof_five = 3;
size_t exp_sizeof_six = 8;
size_t exp_sizeof_seven = 3;
- size_t exp_sizeof_eight = 2;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_eight = 4;
size_t exp_sizeof_nine = 8;
- size_t exp_sizeof_ten = 8;
+ size_t exp_sizeof_ten = 16;
- unsigned char exp_one_c = 7;
- unsigned char exp_two_c = 9;
+ unsigned char exp_one_c = 8;
+ unsigned char exp_two_c = 12;
unsigned char exp_three_c = 4;
unsigned char exp_four_c = 4;
char exp_five_c = 2;
char exp_six_c = 5;
char exp_seven_c = 2;
- char exp_eight_c = 1;
+ char exp_eight_c = 2;
char exp_nine_c = 0;
- char exp_ten_c = 1;
+ char exp_ten_c = 8;
#else /* testing -mno-ms-bitfields */
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-4.c.jj 2018-02-27 18:09:09.544421580 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-4.c 2018-02-27 18:18:00.845039925 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+/* PR target/52991 */
+/* { dg-do compile { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
+
+#define CHECK(expr) extern char c[(expr) ? 1 : -1]
+#define offsetof(x, y) __builtin_offsetof (x, y)
+
+struct test_sp1 {
+ int a;
+ short b;
+ int c;
+ char d;
+} __attribute__((packed,ms_struct));
+
+CHECK (sizeof (struct test_sp1) == 11);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp1, a) == 0);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp1, b) == 4);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp1, c) == 6);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp1, d) == 10);
+
+struct test_sp3 {
+ int a;
+ short b __attribute__((aligned(8)));
+ int c;
+ char d;
+} __attribute__((packed,ms_struct));
+
+CHECK (sizeof (struct test_sp3) == 16);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp3, a) == 0);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp3, b) == 8);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp3, c) == 10);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_sp3, d) == 14);
+
+struct test_s4 {
+ int a;
+ short b;
+ int c:15;
+ char d;
+} __attribute__((ms_struct));
+
+CHECK (sizeof (struct test_s4) == 16);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_s4, a) == 0);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_s4, b) == 4);
+CHECK (offsetof (struct test_s4, d) == 12);
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-5.c.jj 2018-02-27 18:31:24.043753173 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bf-ms-layout-5.c 2018-02-27 18:35:29.825676223 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+/* PR target/52991 */
+/* { dg-do run { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
+
+struct S {
+ int a : 2;
+ __attribute__((aligned (8))) int b : 2;
+ int c : 28;
+ __attribute__((aligned (16))) int d : 2;
+ int e : 30;
+} __attribute__((ms_struct));
+
+struct S s;
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+ int i;
+ if (sizeof (s) != 32)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ s.a = -1;
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
+ if (((char *) &s)[i] != (i ? 0 : 3))
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ s.a = 0;
+ s.b = -1;
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
+ if (((char *) &s)[i] != (i ? 0 : 12))
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ s.b = 0;
+ s.c = -1;
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
+ if (((signed char *) &s)[i] != (i > 3 ? 0 : (i ? -1 : -16)))
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ s.c = 0;
+ s.d = -1;
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
+ if (((signed char *) &s)[i] != (i == 16 ? 3 : 0))
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ s.d = 0;
+ s.e = -1;
+ for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
+ if (((signed char *) &s)[i] != ((i < 16 || i > 19) ? 0 : (i == 16 ? -4 : -1)))
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ return 0;
+}
Jakub