On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/4/20 9:45 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 8/3/20 2:45 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 8/3/20 8:53 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the first testcase below, expand_aggr_init_1 sets up t's
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > constructor such that the ctor first zero-initializes the entire
> > > > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > b,
> > > > > > > > followed by calling b's default constructor, the latter of which
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > default-initializes the array member b::m via a VEC_INIT_EXPR.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So upon constexpr evaluation of this latter VEC_INIT_EXPR,
> > > > > > > > ctx->ctor
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > nonempty due to the prior zero-initialization, and we proceed in
> > > > > > > > cxx_eval_vec_init to append new constructor_elts to the end of
> > > > > > > > ctx->ctor
> > > > > > > > without first checking if a matching constructor_elt already
> > > > > > > > exists.
> > > > > > > > This leads to ctx->ctor having two matching constructor_elts for
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > index.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This patch partially fixes this issue by making the RANGE_EXPR
> > > > > > > > optimization in cxx_eval_vec_init truncate ctx->ctor before
> > > > > > > > adding the
> > > > > > > > single RANGE_EXPR constructor_elt. This isn't a complete fix
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > the RANGE_EXPR optimization applies only when the constant
> > > > > > > > initializer
> > > > > > > > is relocatable, so whenever it's not relocatable we can still
> > > > > > > > build up
> > > > > > > > an invalid CONSTRUCTOR, e.g. if in the first testcase we add an
> > > > > > > > NSDMI
> > > > > > > > such as 'e *p = this;' to struct e, then the ICE still occurs
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this patch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A complete but more risky one-line fix would be to always truncate
> > > > > > > ctx->ctor beforehand, not just when the RANGE_EXPR optimization
> > > > > > > applies.
> > > > > > > If it's true that the initializer of a VEC_INIT_EXPR can't observe
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > previous elements of the target array, then it should be safe to
> > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > truncate I think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if default-initialization of the array element type doesn't
> > > > > > fully
> > > > > > initialize the elements, e.g. if 'e' had another member without a
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > initializer? Does truncation first mean we lose the
> > > > > > zero-initialization
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > such a member?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, it looks like we would lose the zero-initialization of such a
> > > > > member with or without truncation first (so with any one of the three
> > > > > proposed fixes). I think it's because the evaluation loop in
> > > > > cxx_eval_vec_init disregards each element's prior (zero-initialized)
> > > > > state.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could probably still do the truncation, but clear the
> > > > > > CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING flag on the element initializer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, this seems to work well. Like this?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- >8 --
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] c++: cxx_eval_vec_init after zero initialization
> > > > > [PR96282]
> > > > >
> > > > > In the first testcase below, expand_aggr_init_1 sets up t's default
> > > > > constructor such that the ctor first zero-initializes the entire base
> > > > > b,
> > > > > followed by calling b's default constructor, the latter of which just
> > > > > default-initializes the array member b::m via a VEC_INIT_EXPR.
> > > > >
> > > > > So upon constexpr evaluation of this latter VEC_INIT_EXPR, ctx->ctor
> > > > > is
> > > > > nonempty due to the prior zero-initialization, and we proceed in
> > > > > cxx_eval_vec_init to append new constructor_elts to the end of
> > > > > ctx->ctor
> > > > > without first checking if a matching constructor_elt already exists.
> > > > > This leads to ctx->ctor having two matching constructor_elts for each
> > > > > index.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch fixes this issue by truncating a zero-initialized array
> > > > > object in cxx_eval_vec_init_1 before we begin appending
> > > > > default-initialized
> > > > > array elements to it. Since default-initialization may leave parts of
> > > > > the element type unitialized, we also preserve the array's prior
> > > > > zero-initialized state by clearing CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING on each
> > > > > appended element initializers.
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > PR c++/96282
> > > > > * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_vec_init_1): Truncate ctx->ctor and
> > > > > then clear CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING on each appended element
> > > > > initializer if we're default-initializing a previously
> > > > > zero-initialized array object.
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > PR c++/96282
> > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C: New test.
> > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C: New test.
> > > > > * g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C: New test.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 17
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C | 16
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C
> > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C
> > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> > > > > index b1c1d249c6e..706bef323b2 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> > > > > @@ -4171,6 +4171,17 @@ cxx_eval_vec_init_1 (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
> > > > > tree
> > > > > atype, tree init,
> > > > > pre_init = true;
> > > > > }
> > > > > + bool zero_initialized_p = false;
> > > > > + if ((pre_init || value_init || !init) && initializer_zerop
> > > > > (ctx->ctor))
> > > >
> > > > Does initializer_zerop capture the difference between a
> > > > default-initialized or
> > > > value-initialized containing object? I would expect it to be true for
> > > > both.
> > > > Maybe check CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING (ctx->ctor) instead?
> > >
> > > D'oh, indeed it looks like initializer_zerop is not what we want here.
> >
> > Hmm, might we need to check both? !CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING tells us
> > about the omitted initializers, but it seems we'd still need to test if
> > the explicit initializers are zero.
>
> We might check initializer_zerop as an assert; at this point the only previous
> initialization should be zero-initialization.
Sounds good. I wasn't quite sure what we may or may not assume about
the previous initializer.
>
> What are you going for with (pre_init || value_init || !init)? All cases
> other than array copy? We shouldn't ever see zero-initialization before copy,
> so this test seems unnecessary.
Yeah, the intent was to make sure to include the recursive
initialization case while excluding the array copy case. I suppose we
can add this test as an assert too, but it doesn't seem that worthwhile.
In the below I removed the pre_init || value_init || !init test and
added the initializer_zerop test as an assert. Does it look OK to
commit after bootstrap/regtest succeeds?
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: cxx_eval_vec_init after zero-initialization [PR96282]
In the first testcase below, expand_aggr_init_1 sets up t's default
constructor such that the ctor first zero-initializes the entire base b,
followed by calling b's default constructor, the latter of which just
default-initializes the array member b::m via a VEC_INIT_EXPR.
So upon constexpr evaluation of this latter VEC_INIT_EXPR, ctx->ctor is
nonempty due to the prior zero-initialization, and we proceed in
cxx_eval_vec_init to append new constructor_elts to the end of ctx->ctor
without first checking if a matching constructor_elt already exists.
This leads to ctx->ctor having two matching constructor_elts for each
index.
This patch fixes this issue by truncating a zero-initialized array
CONSTRUCTOR in cxx_eval_vec_init_1 before we begin appending array
elements to it. We preserve its zeroed out state during evaluation by
clearing CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING on each new appended element.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/96282
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_vec_init_1): Truncate ctx->ctor and
then clear CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING on each appended element
initializer if we're initializing a previously zero-initialized
array object.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/96282
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C | 13 +++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C | 13 +++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C | 16 ++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index b1c1d249c6e..bec888646ea 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -4171,6 +4171,18 @@ cxx_eval_vec_init_1 (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
atype, tree init,
pre_init = true;
}
+ bool zeroed_out = false;
+ if (!CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING (ctx->ctor))
+ {
+ /* We're initializing an array object that had been zero-initialized
+ earlier. Truncate ctx->ctor and preserve its zeroed state by
+ clearing CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING on each of the element
+ initializers we append to it. */
+ gcc_assert (initializer_zerop (ctx->ctor));
+ zeroed_out = true;
+ vec_safe_truncate (*p, 0);
+ }
+
tree nelts = get_array_or_vector_nelts (ctx, atype, non_constant_p,
overflow_p);
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT max = tree_to_uhwi (nelts);
@@ -4182,7 +4194,11 @@ cxx_eval_vec_init_1 (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
atype, tree init,
constexpr_ctx new_ctx;
init_subob_ctx (ctx, new_ctx, idx, pre_init ? init : elttype);
if (new_ctx.ctor != ctx->ctor)
- CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT (*p, idx, new_ctx.ctor);
+ {
+ if (zeroed_out)
+ CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING (new_ctx.ctor) = false;
+ CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT (*p, idx, new_ctx.ctor);
+ }
if (TREE_CODE (elttype) == ARRAY_TYPE)
{
/* A multidimensional array; recurse. */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..274f55a88bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array26.C
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+// PR c++/96282
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct e { bool v = true; };
+
+template<int N>
+struct b { e m[N]; };
+
+template<int N>
+struct t : b<N> { constexpr t() : b<N>() {} };
+
+constexpr t<1> h1;
+constexpr t<42> h2;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..1234caef31d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-array27.C
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+// PR c++/96282
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct e { bool v = true; e *p = this; };
+
+template<int N>
+struct b { e m[N][N]; };
+
+template<int N>
+struct t : b<N> { constexpr t() : b<N>() {} };
+
+constexpr t<1> h1;
+constexpr t<42> h2;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..47ad11f2290
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-init18.C
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+// PR c++/96282
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+
+struct e { bool v = true; bool w; };
+
+template<int N>
+struct b { e m[N][N]; };
+
+template<int N>
+struct t : b<N> { constexpr t() : b<N>() {} };
+
+constexpr t<1> h1;
+static_assert(h1.m[0][0].w == false);
+
+constexpr t<42> h2;
+static_assert(h2.m[17][17].w == false);
--
2.28.0.89.g85b4e0a6dc
