Re: [v3 of PATCH 15/14] Use fold_for_warn in get_atomic_generic_size

[Jason Merrill]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:36 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 23:22 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:53 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 15:35 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:12 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.c
>> > > om>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I rebased the v2 patchkit; here's an extra patch to fix an
>> > > > issue
>> > > > with it uncovered by a recently-added testcase (in r254990).
>> > > >
>> > > > With the patch kit, but without this patch, g++'s
>> > > >   c-c++-common/pr83059.c
>> > > > fails to emit the "invalid memory model argument 6" warning.
>> > > >
>> > > > Successfully bootstrapped&regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, as
>> > > > part of the kit.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is this OK for trunk, assuming the rest of the kit is approved?
>> > > >
>> > > > gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>> > > >         * c-common.c (get_atomic_generic_size): Call
>> > > > fold_for_warn
>> > > > on the
>> > > >         params before checking for INTEGER_CST.
>> > > > ---
>> > > >  gcc/c-family/c-common.c | 2 +-
>> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
>> > > > index 3438b87..ab03b7d 100644
>> > > > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
>> > > > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
>> > > > @@ -6720,7 +6720,7 @@ get_atomic_generic_size (location_t loc,
>> > > > tree
>> > > > function,
>> > > >    /* Check memory model parameters for validity.  */
>> > > >    for (x = n_param - n_model ; x < n_param; x++)
>> > > >      {
>> > > > -      tree p = (*params)[x];
>> > > > +      tree p = fold_for_warn ((*params)[x]);
>> > > >        if (TREE_CODE (p) == INTEGER_CST)
>> > > >          {
>> > > >           /* memmodel_base masks the low 16 bits, thus ignore
>> > > > any
>> > > > bits above
>> > >
>> > > Let's check the error case before we call fold_for_warn.
>> > >
>> > > Jason
>> >
>> > Do you mean like this?  (bootstrapped; regrtest in progress)
>>
>> Ah, no, sorry I wasn't clear.  I meant to reorder the if/else there,
>> so we check for INTEGER_TYPE first and potentially give an error,
>> then
>> fold, and then potentially warn.
>>
>> Jason
>
> Aha - thanks!
>
> Here's an updated version of the patch.
>
> Successfully bootstrapped&regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, as
> part of the kit.
>
> OK for trunk once the rest of the kit is approved?

OK.

Jason