Hi,
Gentle ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/594699.html
BR,
Kewen
>
>> on 2022/5/13 13:29, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> PR105485 exposes that new builtin function framework doesn't handle
>>> unresolved overloaded builtin function well. With new builtin
>>> function support, we don't have builtin info for any overloaded
>>> rs6000_gen_builtins enum, since they are expected to be resolved to
>>> one specific instance. So when function rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin
>>> faces one unresolved overloaded builtin, the access for builtin info
>>> becomes out of bound and gets ICE then.
>>>
>>> We should not try to fold one unresolved overloaded builtin there
>>> and as the previous support we should emit one error message during
>>> expansion phase like "unresolved overload for builtin ...".
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux-gnu P8 and
>>> powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and P10.
>>>
>>> Is it ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Kewen
>>> -----
>>> PR target/105485
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.cc (rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin): Add
>>> the handling for unresolved overloaded builtin function.
>>> (rs6000_expand_builtin): Likewise.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * g++.target/powerpc/pr105485.C: New test.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.cc | 13 +++++++++++++
>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr105485.C | 9 +++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr105485.C
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.cc
>>> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.cc
>>> index e925ba9fad9..e102305c90c 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.cc
>>> @@ -1294,6 +1294,11 @@ rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin (gimple_stmt_iterator
>>> *gsi)
>>> enum tree_code bcode;
>>> gimple *g;
>>>
>>> + /* For an unresolved overloaded builtin, return early here since there
>>> + is no builtin info for it and we are unable to fold it. */
>>> + if (fn_code > RS6000_OVLD_NONE)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> size_t uns_fncode = (size_t) fn_code;
>>> enum insn_code icode = rs6000_builtin_info[uns_fncode].icode;
>>> const char *fn_name1 = rs6000_builtin_info[uns_fncode].bifname;
>>> @@ -3295,6 +3300,14 @@ rs6000_expand_builtin (tree exp, rtx target, rtx /*
>>> subtarget */,
>>> tree fndecl = TREE_OPERAND (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp), 0);
>>> enum rs6000_gen_builtins fcode
>>> = (enum rs6000_gen_builtins) DECL_MD_FUNCTION_CODE (fndecl);
>>> +
>>> + /* Emit error message if it's an unresolved overloaded builtin. */
>>> + if (fcode > RS6000_OVLD_NONE)
>>> + {
>>> + error ("unresolved overload for builtin %qF", fndecl);
>>> + return const0_rtx;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> size_t uns_fcode = (size_t)fcode;
>>> enum insn_code icode = rs6000_builtin_info[uns_fcode].icode;
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr105485.C
>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr105485.C
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000000..a3b8290df8c
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/powerpc/pr105485.C
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
>>> +/* It's to verify no ICE here, ignore error/warning messages since
>>> + they are not test points here. */
>>> +/* { dg-excess-errors "pr105485" } */
>>> +
>>> +template <class> void __builtin_vec_vslv();
>>> +typedef __attribute__((altivec(vector__))) char T;
>>> +T b (T c, T d) {
>>> + return __builtin_vec_vslv(c, d);
>>> +}
