This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] Fix sibcall argument overlap checking if pretend_args_size (PR target/52129)


On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Carrot Wei <carrot@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard and Jakub
>
> Since 4.6 contains the same bug, I would like to back port it to 4.6
> branch. Could you approve it for 4.6?
>
> Jing and Doug
>
> Could you approve it for google/gcc-4_6-mobile branch?
>

OK for google/gcc-4_6-mobile and gcc-4_6_2-mobile

Jing

> thanks
> Carrot
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> The attached testcase is miscompiled on arm*, by doing a sibcall when setup
>>> of one argument overwrites incoming arguments used to setup parameters in
>>> later insns.
>>> The reason why
>>> mem_overlaps_already_clobbered_arg_p/check_sibcall_argument_overlap
>>> fails to detect is that the caller has non-zero
>>> crtl->args.pretend_args_size, and in that case the base:
>>> ? ? ?/* The argument block when performing a sibling call is the
>>> ? ? ? ? incoming argument block. ?*/
>>> ? ? ?if (pass == 0)
>>> ? ? ? ?{
>>> ? ? ? ? ?argblock = crtl->args.internal_arg_pointer;
>>> ? ? ? ? ?argblock
>>> #ifdef STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ?= plus_constant (argblock, crtl->args.pretend_args_size);
>>> #else
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ?= plus_constant (argblock, -crtl->args.pretend_args_size);
>>> #endif
>>> ? ? ? ? ?stored_args_map = sbitmap_alloc (args_size.constant);
>>> ? ? ? ? ?sbitmap_zero (stored_args_map);
>>> ? ? ? ?}
>>> apparently isn't virtual-incoming-rtx, but that plus pretend_args_size
>>> (8 in this case). ?When we store bits into stored_args_map sbitmap,
>>> we use arg->locate.slot_offset.constant based values (or something different
>>> for ARGS_GROW_DOWNWARD, but when mem_overlaps_already_clobbered_arg_p is
>>> testing those bits, it uses just virtual-incoming-rtx offsets (or something
>>> different for ARGS_GROW_DOWNWARD). ?This patch fixes it by adjusting the
>>> virtual-incoming-rtx relative offset to be actually argblock relative
>>> offset.
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux and tested on the
>>> testcase on arm cross. ?Ok for trunk?
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> 2012-02-06 ?Jakub Jelinek ?<jakub@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?PR target/52129
>>> ? ? ? ?* calls.c (mem_overlaps_already_clobbered_arg_p): If val is
>>> ? ? ? ?CONST_INT_P, subtract resp. add crtl->args.pretend_args_size to it.
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr52129.c: New test.
>>>
>>> --- gcc/calls.c.jj ? ? ?2012-02-01 14:44:27.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ gcc/calls.c 2012-02-06 10:19:12.112132905 +0100
>>> @@ -1808,6 +1808,11 @@ mem_overlaps_already_clobbered_arg_p (rt
>>> ? ? return true;
>>> ? else
>>> ? ? i = INTVAL (val);
>>> +#ifdef STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD
>>> + ?i -= crtl->args.pretend_args_size;
>>> +#else
>>> + ?i += crtl->args.pretend_args_size;
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> ?#ifdef ARGS_GROW_DOWNWARD
>>> ? i = -i - size;
>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr52129.c.jj ? ?2012-02-06 10:27:50.988876791 +0100
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr52129.c ? ? ? 2012-02-06 10:25:26.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
>>> +/* PR target/52129 */
>>> +
>>> +extern void abort (void);
>>> +struct S { void *p; unsigned int q; };
>>> +struct T { char a[64]; char b[64]; } t;
>>> +
>>> +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) int
>>> +foo (void *x, struct S s, void *y, void *z)
>>> +{
>>> + ?if (x != &t.a[2] || s.p != &t.b[5] || s.q != 27 || y != &t.a[17] || z != &t.b[17])
>>> + ? ?abort ();
>>> + ?return 29;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) int
>>> +bar (void *x, void *y, void *z, struct S s, int t, struct T *u)
>>> +{
>>> + ?return foo (x, s, &u->a[t], &u->b[t]);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int
>>> +main ()
>>> +{
>>> + ?struct S s = { &t.b[5], 27 };
>>> + ?if (bar (&t.a[2], (void *) 0, (void *) 0, s, 17, &t) != 29)
>>> + ? ?abort ();
>>> + ?return 0;
>>> +}
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?Jakub


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