Hi Ruoyao, on 2021/7/30 下午12:57, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote: > Ping again. >
This ping-ed patch has been approved by Richard at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576001.html Just chime in as I guess you didn't receive his mail somehow. BR, Kewen > On Sun, 2021-07-11 at 01:48 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: >> We are comparing enum values (in wide_int) to check ODR violation. >> However, if we compare two wide_int values with different precision, >> we'll trigger an assert, leading to ICE. With enum-base introduced >> in C++11, it's easy to sink into this situation. >> >> To fix the issue, we need to explicitly check this kind of mismatch, >> and emit a proper warning message if there is such one. >> >> Bootstrapped & regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? >> >> gcc/ >> >> PR ipa/101396 >> * ipa-devirt.c (ipa_odr_read_section): Compare the precision >> of >> enum values, and emit a warning if they mismatch. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> >> PR ipa/101396 >> * g++.dg/lto/pr101396_0.C: New test. >> * g++.dg/lto/pr101396_1.C: New test. >> --- >> gcc/ipa-devirt.c | 9 +++++++++ >> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_0.C | 12 ++++++++++++ >> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_1.C | 10 ++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_0.C >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_1.C >> >> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-devirt.c b/gcc/ipa-devirt.c >> index 8cd1100aba9..8deec75b2df 100644 >> --- a/gcc/ipa-devirt.c >> +++ b/gcc/ipa-devirt.c >> @@ -4193,6 +4193,8 @@ ipa_odr_read_section (struct lto_file_decl_data >> *file_data, const char *data, >> if (do_warning != -1 || j >= this_enum.vals.length ()) >> continue; >> if (strcmp (id, this_enum.vals[j].name) >> + || (val.get_precision() != >> + this_enum.vals[j].val.get_precision()) >> || val != this_enum.vals[j].val) >> { >> warn_name = xstrdup (id); >> @@ -4260,6 +4262,13 @@ ipa_odr_read_section (struct lto_file_decl_data >> *file_data, const char *data, >> "name %qs differs from name %qs defined" >> " in another translation unit", >> this_enum.vals[j].name, warn_name); >> + else if (this_enum.vals[j].val.get_precision() != >> + warn_value.get_precision()) >> + inform (this_enum.vals[j].locus, >> + "name %qs is defined as %u-bit while >> another " >> + "translation unit defines it as %u-bit", >> + warn_name, >> this_enum.vals[j].val.get_precision(), >> + warn_value.get_precision()); >> /* FIXME: In case there is easy way to print >> wide_ints, >> perhaps we could do it here instead of overflow >> check. */ >> else if (wi::fits_shwi_p (this_enum.vals[j].val) >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_0.C >> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_0.C >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..b7a2947a880 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_0.C >> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ >> +/* { dg-lto-do link } */ >> + >> +enum A : __UINT32_TYPE__ { // { dg-lto-warning "6: type 'A' violates >> the C\\+\\+ One Definition Rule" } >> + a, // { dg-lto-note "3: name 'a' is defined as 32-bit while another >> translation unit defines it as 64-bit" } >> + b, >> + c >> +}; >> + >> +int main() >> +{ >> + return (int) A::a; >> +} >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_1.C >> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_1.C >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..a6d032d694d >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr101396_1.C >> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ >> +enum A : __UINT64_TYPE__ { // { dg-lto-note "6: an enum with >> different value name is defined in another translation unit" } >> + a, // { dg-lto-note "3: mismatching definition" } >> + b, >> + c >> +}; >> + >> +int f(enum A x) >> +{ >> + return (int) x; >> +} >
