[PATCH][committed] Fix ICE in maybe_record_trace_start

[Tom de Vries]

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).

Thanks,
- Tom