Extended doubt regarding the bug 93432
Krishna Narayanan
krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com
Sat Feb 19 13:38:37 GMT 2022
Thanks,
I also tried by cloning,but that error persists,I did not try changing the
./gdbinit.
"add-auto-load-safe-path /absolute/path/to/build/gcc" is what I tried
putting it in .gdbinit ,that's it.
To give an update about uninitialized variable bugs, I am going through the
passes of RTL,tree and seeing their PHI nodes, hashtable and other pass
details.
I am preparing a test case for that and going forward with it.
Thanks a lot!
Krishna Narayanan
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:57 AM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/22 05:10, Krishna Narayanan wrote:
> > Thank you Sir,
> > I got the warnings and did try the test-bug.c with different
> > optimizations and got the expected warnings.I am now familiar with how
> > the warnings work with respect to the optimizations we use, my intention
> > was to step through the gcc source code which gives a warning for
> > uninitialized variable and understand it that's why I did the uninit.c
> > in the previous steps.
> > And for the above steps Step 3: It says Function
> > "pass_late_warn_uninitialized::execute" not defined.I referred this
> > (https://splichal.eu/lcov/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c.gcov.html
> > <https://splichal.eu/lcov/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c.gcov.html>) for the
> code.
>
> Accessing the official GCC source code repository is described here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git.html
>
> > When I invoke the cc1 there is an error,
> > gdb.error: No enum type named tree_code.
> > .gdbinit:15: Error in sourced command file:
> > Error while executing Python code.
>
> These look like GDB errors coming out of your .gdbinit file.
>
> > When I set any other breakpoint it goes for an exit.c ,I didn't get this
> > behaviour, Is it because of some mistake in the prior steps of
> > configuration and building?
>
> It's hard for me to say since I'm not sure what you did. I recommend
> cloning the GCC Git repository as described on the page above. Then
> configure the compiler as I described below. You can find more details
> on configuring GCC here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
>
> Then build GCC as I described. Refer to the online instructions for
> details:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
>
> Then you should be able to start GCC in GDB as I described below.
>
> Martin
>
>
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Krishna Narayanan.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:52 AM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com
> > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/14/22 09:59, Krishna Narayanan wrote:
> > > Yes I tried this but still it shows the same error,
> > > # 1 "tree-ssa-uninit.c"
> > > # 1 "<built-in>"
> > > # 1 "<command-line>"
> > > # 31 "<command-line>"
> > > # 1 "/usr/include/stdc-predef.h" 1 3 4
> > > # 32 "<command-line>" 2
> > > # 1 "tree-ssa-uninit.c"
> > > tree-ssa-uninit.c:21:10: fatal error: config.h: No such file or
> > directory
> > > 21 | #include "config.h"
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~
> > > I have also given "make CFLAGS='-g3' all " in the configuration.
> > > I have attached a screenshot of the terminal, I don't know what
> > is going
> > > wrong on my end.
> > > Can you please help me out with this?
> >
> > I was trying to explain is that given a source file, say
> > test-bug-93432.c, with the test case from bug 93432 but that also
> > #includes a bunch of standard headers (such as <stdio.h> that's
> > missing from the test case), to see what goes on in GCC as it
> > compiles the test case, I follow these steps:
> >
> > 1) Create a prpeprocessing translation unit:
> > $ /build/gcc-master/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-master/gcc -E
> > $CPPFLAGS
> > test-bug-93432.c > test-bug-93432.i
> >
> > CPPFLAGS above is [a variable that expands to] the options
> that
> > affect the preprocessor, most commonly -D and -I. (For the
> test
> > case in bug 93432 CPPFLAGS can be empty since gcc knows about
> > headers in /usr/include).
> >
> > 2) Debug GCC with the translation unit without specifying
> CPPFLAGS:
> > $ /build/gcc-master/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-master/gcc
> > test-bug-93432.i -wrapper gdb,--arg
> >
> > But you seem to be compiling tree-ssa-uninit.c, the GCC source file
> > that implements the uninitialized warnings, rather than the test case
> > for the warning. I don't think you want to do that if what you're
> > trying to understand is how the warning works.
> >
> > What you want to do is something along the lines below (starting with
> > building the debugging version of GCC itself):
> >
> > 1) build GCC with debugging information and no optimization,
> e.g.,
> > $ mkdir -p /build/gcc-master
> > $ (cd /build/gcc-master && /src/gcc/configure
> > --enable-stage1-languages=c,c++)
> > $ make -C /build/gcc-master -j16 -l12 stage1-bubble
> > CFLAGS='-O0
> > -g3' CXXFLAGS='-O0 -g3' STAGE1_CFLAGS='-O0 -g3' STAGE1_CXXFLAGS='-O0
> > -g3'
> > You should adjust the arguments to the -j and -l options to
> > the machine you're building on (the number of CPUs and cores
> > and interactive jobs/users running on it).
> >
> > 2) start GDB with the GCC you built in (1)
> > $ /build/gcc-master/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-master/gcc
> > test-bug-93432.i -wrapper gdb,--arg
> >
> > 3) set breakpoints in the main entry points in
> tree-ssa-uninit.cc,
> > e.g.,
> > (gdb) break pass_late_warn_uninitialized::execute
> > (gdb) break execute_early_warn_uninitialized
> >
> > 4) run GCC with -O2 -Wall as command line options and
> > test-bug-93432.i
> > as the command line argument within GDB:
> > (gdb) run -O2 -Wall -quiet test-bug-93432.i
> >
> > I'd expect there to be a page somewhere under
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki>
> > that describes this and more, but all I found was the page below:
> >
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Top-Level_Bootstrap?highlight=%28stage1-bubble%29
> > <
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Top-Level_Bootstrap?highlight=%28stage1-bubble%29
> >
> >
> > It might help others get started to update it with the steps that
> work
> > for you (after checking with someone here that they make sense.)
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Krishna Narayanan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:54 PM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com
> > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/11/22 11:10, Krishna Narayanan wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I tried to run the gcc in the debugger but I am getting a
> > repetitive
> > > > error for header files,I tried using -I followed by the
> > path of the
> > > > header file (-I/home/krishna/objdir/gcc) in the command
> > but still
> > > the
> > > > error is persistent.
> > > > Error:
> > > > In file included from *tree-ssa-uninit.c:22*:
> > > > *system.h:209:10*: fatal error: safe-ctype.h: No such file
> or
> > > directory
> > > > 209 | #include "safe-ctype.h"
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > compilation terminated.
> > > > How do I resolve this?Can you please help me out with this
> and
> > > where did
> > > > I go wrong?
> > >
> > > I usually create a translation unit (a .i file for a C source
> and
> > > a .ii file for a C++ source) by compiling the .c or .C file
> with
> > > the -E option and then start GCC the debugger on that file.
> For
> > > example, with an unoptimized GCC stage1 build with -g3
> enabled in
> > > /build/gcc-master, I invoke it in GDB like so:
> > >
> > > $ /build/gcc-master/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-master/gcc
> > tu.i -wrapper
> > > gdb,--arg
> > >
> > > (In Emacs, I use gdb,-i=mi,--arg as the trailing pieces.)
> > This lets
> > > me avoid many of the -I command line options that the GCC
> driver
> > > otherwise passes to to th compiler implicitly.
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > > Thanks and regards,
> > > > Krishna Narayanan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:20 AM Martin Sebor
> > <msebor@gmail.com <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>>
> > > > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:msebor@gmail.com <mailto:msebor@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2/8/22 10:37, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-help wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 17:18, Krishna Narayanan <
> > > > > krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com
> > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com
> > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com>>
> > > > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com
> > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com
> > <mailto:krishnanarayanan132002@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Thanks for your response,Could you please clarify
> > if this
> > > is a bug?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > It warns with -O1, which is the documented
> behaviour:
> > > > >
> > > > > The effectiveness of some warnings depends on
> > > > optimizations also
> > > > > being enabled. For example -Wsuggest-final-types is
> > more
> > > > > effective with link-time optimization and
> > > > -Wmaybe-uninitialized does
> > > > > not warn at all unless optimization is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, although the latter sentence is no longer
> completely
> > > accurate.
> > > > Since GCC 11 -Wmaybe-uninitialized doesn't need
> > optimization
> > > to trigger
> > > > for code that passes an uninitialized object to a
> function
> > > that takes
> > > > a const reference. Let me update the manual with that.
> > > >
> > > > > So no, I don't think it' a bug. GCC is behaving as
> > designed.
> > > > Ideally it
> > > > > would be better at warning without optimization,
> > but changing
> > > > that would be
> > > > > hard.
> > > >
> > > > It might be tricky to handle this case without causing
> > false
> > > positives
> > > > in others.
> > > >
> > > > Krishna, to understand why some of these cases are
> > diagnosed
> > > and others
> > > > aren't, you need to look at either the dump from the
> > uninit pass
> > > > (-fdump-tree-uninit) with -O1 and above, or at some
> early
> > > dump (e.g.,
> > > > -fdump-tree-ssa) at -O0. Here's a link to the former
> on
> > > Godbolt for
> > > > your example:
> > > >
> > > > https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E>
> > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E>>
> > > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E>
> > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/89c4s7o6E>>>
> > > >
> > > > The best way is of course to step through GCC in a
> > debugger (for
> > > > the uninitialized warnings the code is in
> > > gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.cc).
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> Krishna Narayanan.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:28 PM Jonathan Wakely
> > > > <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com <mailto:jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>>>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 16:25, Krishna Narayanan via
> > > Gcc-help <
> > > > >>> gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> > <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org> <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> > <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>>
> > > <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
> > <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hello,
> > > > >>>> As an extension to the bug 93432
> > > > >>>>
> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432>
> > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432>>
> > > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432>
> > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432>>>), I would
> like to
> > > > >>>> add a few more points,here in the given code
> > > > >>>> (https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d
> > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d>
> > > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d
> > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d>>
> > > > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d
> > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d>
> > > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d
> > <https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d>>>) there is a warning averted but
> > there
> > > > >>>> is no warning shown for this code
> > > > >>>> (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec>
> > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec>>
> > > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec>
> > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec>>>) .
> > > > >>>> I tried it with "-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
> > > > >>>> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations" and
> > > > "fsanitize=undefined".There
> > > > >>>> are no errors for gcc but clang has runtime
> > errors,the
> > > error for
> > > > >>>> clang: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E>
> > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E>>
> > > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E>
> > > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E
> > <https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E>>> .
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Can we have a warning in the second case as
> well? It
> > > will be
> > > > much more
> > > > >>>> convenient as there is a lapse of initialization.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yes, ideally it would warn.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
More information about the Gcc-help
mailing list