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);
>>>> +}
