[PATCH] correct maximum valid alignment in error message (PR 89812)

[Jeff Law]

On 3/25/19 11:04 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 3/25/19 10:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 3/24/19 6:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> The error issued when the aligned attribute argument is too big
>>> to be represented is incorrect: it says the maximum alignment
>>> is 1U << 31 when it should actually be 1 << 28.  This was a typo
>>> introduced when the error message was enhanced earlier in GCC 9.
>>>
>>> The test I added to verify the fix for the typo exposed another
>>> bug introduced in the same commit as the incorrect value in
>>> the error message: assuming that the attribute aligned argument
>>> fits in SHWI.
>>>
>>> The attached patch corrects both problems.  It has been tested
>>> on x86_64-linux.  I will commit it as obvious sometime this week
>>> unless there are any objections or suggestions for changes.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> PS I have a couple of questions related to the affected code:
>>> 1) Does GCC support building with compilers where int is not 32
>>> Â Â Â  bits wide, or where BITS_PER_UNIT is not 3? (I.e., either is
>>> Â Â Â  less or more?)
>> We've certainly supported 16 bit ints in the past.  H8/300 would be an
>> example.  It defaults to 16 bit ints.  But I don't think we've tested
>> that in a very long time -- my tester is only testing with -mint32.
>>
>> Look for INT_TYPE_SIZE in config/*/*.h
>>
>> We've never supported bootstrapping in that mode, just crosses.
> 
> Thanks, that's what I was after: whether GCC can build natively
> with such a compiler where sizeof (int) != 32.  Sounds like it
> can't, i.e., HOST_BITS_PER_INT is always at least 32.  Or do
> you suppose it's always exactly 32?
At least 32 for HOST_BITS_PER_INT, I think we've supported 64
HOST_BITS_PER_INT as well.

HOST_BITS_PER_INT is defined indirectly via CHAR_BIT * SIZEOF_INT, both
of which are determined during the configure phase.


> 
>>
>> AVR is probably the most interesting as it even has an flag to make
>> "int" be 8 bits.  It's probably the best tested target in this space.
>>
>> BITS_PER_UNIT is more of a hardware characteristic.  It's generally 8.
>> THough I thought one of the TI chips defined it to 32.  I suspect you
>> weren't really looking for BITS_PER_UNIT here.
> 
> I think using BITS_PER_UNIT here is actually another bug in
> the function: it should be using CHAR_BITS instead, like so:
> 
> Â  if (log2align >= HOST_BITS_PER_INT - exact_log2 (CHAR_BITS))
> Â Â Â  {
> Â Â Â Â Â  error ("requested alignment %qE exceeds maximum %u",
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  align, 1U << (HOST_BITS_PER_INT - exact_log2 (CHAR_BITS) - 1));
> Â Â Â Â Â  return -1;
> Â Â Â  }
Isn't CHAR_BIT a function of the host, not the target?  In which case I
don't think it's right since supported alignments are primarily a target
property.


> 
> Thanks.  I was concerned about the test I added breaking on
> systems that don't define __INT64_TYPE__, but I see other tests
> that assume that __INT64_TYPE__ exists, so if it does break, it
> won't be the only one.
I wouldn't stress too much about it.  The AVR guys might come back with
a patch to adjust the test.  But again, I wouldn't worry about it until
they do.

jeff