Currently as-base classes lack DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVEs which
means RTL expansion doesn't honor the C++ memory model for bitfields
in them thus for the following testcase
struct B {
B() {}
int x;
int a : 6;
int b : 6;
int c : 6;
};
struct C : B {
char d;
};
C c;
int main()
{
c.c = 1;
c.d = 2;
}
on x86 we happily store to c.c in a way creating a store data race with
c.d:
main:
.LFB6:
.cfi_startproc
movl c+4(%rip), %eax
andl $-258049, %eax
orb $16, %ah
movl %eax, c+4(%rip)
movb $2, c+7(%rip)
xorl %eax, %eax
ret
Fixing the lack of DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVEs in as-base
classes doesn't help though as the C++ FE builds access trees
for c.c using the non-as-base class FIELD_DECLs which is because
of layout_class_type doing
/* Now that we're done with layout, give the base fields the real types. */
for (field = TYPE_FIELDS (t); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field))
if (DECL_ARTIFICIAL (field) && IS_FAKE_BASE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (field)))
TREE_TYPE (field) = TYPE_CONTEXT (TREE_TYPE (field));
this would basically require us to always treat tail-padding in a
struct conservatively in finish_bitfield_representative (according
to the doubt by the ??? comment I patch out below).
Simply commenting out the above makes fixing build_simple_base_path
necessary but even after that it then complains in the verifier
later ("type mismatch in component reference" - as-base to class
assignment).
But it still somehow ends up using the wrong FIELD_DECL in the end.
Now I think we need to fix the wrong-code issue somehow and
doing so in stor-layout.c by conservatively treating tail-padding
is a possibility. But that will pessimize PODs and other languages
unless we have a way to know whether a RECORD_TYPE possibly can
have its tail-padding re-used (I'd hate to put a lang_hooks.name
check there and even that would pessimize C++ PODs).
Any guidance here?