Re: [PATCH][committed] Fix ICE in maybe_record_trace_start

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 02/22/2018 03:59 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 07:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..0ca0b9f034b
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>> +int foo;
>> +typedef long unsigned int size_t;
>> +typedef short unsigned int wchar_t;
>> +struct tm
>> +{
>> +  int tm_mday;
>> +  int tm_mon;
>> +  int tm_year;
>> +};
>> +size_t
>> +__strftime (wchar_t * s, size_t maxsize, const wchar_t * format,
>> const struct tm *tim_p)
>> +{
>> +  size_t count = 0;
>> +  int len = 0;
>> +  size_t i, ctloclen;
>> +  unsigned long width;
>> +  {
>> +    if (foo)
>> +      {
>> +    {
>> +      wchar_t *fmt = L"%s%.*d";
>> +      len = swprintf (&s[count], maxsize, fmt, "-", width, 0);
>> +    }
>> +    if ((count) >= maxsize)
>> +      return 0;
>> +      }
>> +    else
>> +      {
>> +    len =
>> +      swprintf (&s[count], maxsize - count, L"%.2d/%.2d/%.2d", 42,
>> 99, 0);
>> +    if ((count) >= maxsize)
>> +      return 0;
>> +
>> +      }
>> +  }
>> +}
> 
> Hi,
> 
> when compiling this test for nvptx, the missing declaration for swprintf
> results in this default declaration in the .s file based on the
> arguments of the first call:
> ...
>         .extern .func (.param.u32 %value_out) swprintf (.param.u64
> %in_ar0, .param.u64 %in_ar1, .param.u64 %in_ar2, .param.u64 %in_ar3,
> .param.u64 %in_ar4, .param.u32 %in_ar5);
> ...
> 
> and this error message when ptxas process the second call:
> ...
> ptxas regs-arg-size.o, line 97; error   : Type or alignment of argument
> does not match formal parameter '%in_ar3'
> ptxas regs-arg-size.o, line 97; error   : Type or alignment of argument
> does not match formal parameter '%in_ar4'
> ptxas fatal   : Ptx assembly aborted due to errors
> nvptx-as: ptxas returned 255 exit status
> ...
> 
> When adding a declaration in the source like so:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
> index 0ca0b9f034b..81943a2c459 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/regs-arg-size.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>  int foo;
>  typedef long unsigned int size_t;
>  typedef short unsigned int wchar_t;
> +extern int swprintf(wchar_t *wcs, size_t maxlen, const wchar_t *format,
> ...);
>  struct tm
>  {
>    int tm_mday;
> ...
> 
> the declaration changes to:
> ...
> .extern .func (.param.u32 %value_out) swprintf (.param.u64 %in_ar0,
> .param.u64 %in_ar1, .param.u64 %in_ar2, .param.u64 %in_ar3);
> ...
> and test test-case passes.
> 
> Is it ok to update the test-case like this, or should it require
> effective target 'untyped_assembly' (which is false for nvptx).
It's OK to update the test in either way -- I don't think either change
would compromise the test.  Adding the prototype seems like the better
choice to me.

I need to remember that PTX (and the PA) are much more sensitive to
these issues than any other port and once a testcase minimization is
complete to go back and make sure we have suitable prototypes.

jeff