This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimization/7591: function-related struct copy bug
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip dot com dot au>,kelledin at users dot sourceforge dot net
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:28:26 -0700
- Subject: Re: optimization/7591: function-related struct copy bug
- References: <20020818093401.A15946@tigers-lfs.nsw.bigpond.net.au> <20020817184800.A2198@lucon.org> <20020818152009.A29717@tigers-lfs.nsw.bigpond.net.au> <20020818000921.B5909@lucon.org> <20020818080617.A20366@lucon.org> <20020818081443.A20617@lucon.org> <20020818083604.A20945@lucon.org>
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:36:04AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:14:43AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:06:17AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:09:21AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:20:09PM +1000, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 06:48:00PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 09:34:01AM +1000, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello there
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I notice that your gcc test results do not fail the test
> > > > > > > gcc.c-torture/execute/20020307-2.c
> > > > > > > but just about everyone else in the world on i686-pc-linux-gnu
> > > > > > > seems to fail that test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you know the reason for this? Do you use a local patch or something?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-07/msg01561.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahhh, thanks. Not only did it fix that test but it also made
> > > > > "gcc.dg/sequence-pt-1.c" pass for me which was failing otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, It doesn't fix the testcase in Gnats PR 7591 which you
> > > > > pointed out seems to be caused by -maccumulate-outgoing-args in
> > > > > combination with -mcpu=i686
> > > >
> > > > I think it is unrelated. Jeff, I think your patch
> > > >
> > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-02n/msg00379.html
> > > >
> > > > may be the cause for that bug. The problem is you mark the stack
> > > > slots being used before they are used by the memcpy libcall:
> > > >
> > > > 1. expand_call calls store_one_arg.
> > > > 2. store_one_arg marks the stack slots used by arg are being used.
> > > > 3. store_one_arg calls emit_push_insn to push arg.
> > > > 4. emit_push_insn calls emit_library_call to copy arg onto stack.
> > > > 5. emit_library_call calls emit_library_call_value_1 to emit memcpy.
> > > > 6. emit_library_call_value_1 finds the stack slots it is supposed
> > > > to fill are used.
> > > > 7. emit_library_call_value_1 does save/restore around memcpy.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't work on x86.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am testing this patch now. I partially reverted Jeff's patch and
> > > move setting stack_usage_map just before expand_expr, which is needed
> > > according to Jeff's orignal message.
> > >
> >
> > Never mind. It doesn't work. I guess we need to find a way only to do
> > it when it is necessary, like for mn102/mn103.
> >
>
> I am testing this now.
>
Here is the test results:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-08/msg00587.html
No regressions.
H.J.
> 2002-08-18 H.J. Lu <hjl@gnu.org>
>
> * calls.c (store_one_arg): Remove ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED on
> variable_size. Mark any slots used for the argument as in-use
> only if we can't pass all arguments to a library call in
> registers.
>