Hi!

IPA passes redirect some calls in what it determines to be unreachable code
to builtin_decl_unreachable.  But that function returns sometimes
builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE) (which was what GCC 12
and earlier did always), or builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_TRAP)
(e.g. for -funreachable-traps, -O0, -Og).
Now the cgraph verification code has a code to verify cgraph edges
and has there an exception for these redirections to BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE,
but doesn't have for BUILT_IN_TRAP, so e.g. the following testcase
ICEs during that verification.

The following patch just adds BUILT_IN_TRAP to those exceptions.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2023-01-27  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR ipa/106061
        * cgraph.cc (cgraph_edge::verify_corresponds_to_fndecl): Allow
        redirection of calls to __builtin_trap in addition to redirection
        to __builtin_unreachable.

        * gcc.dg/pr106061.c: New test.

--- gcc/cgraph.cc.jj    2023-01-19 09:58:50.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/cgraph.cc       2023-01-26 15:30:50.422759246 +0100
@@ -3248,9 +3248,11 @@ cgraph_edge::verify_corresponds_to_fndec
   node = node->ultimate_alias_target ();
 
   /* Optimizers can redirect unreachable calls or calls triggering undefined
-     behavior to builtin_unreachable.  */
+     behavior to __builtin_unreachable or __builtin_trap.  */
 
-  if (fndecl_built_in_p (callee->decl, BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE))
+  if (fndecl_built_in_p (callee->decl, BUILT_IN_NORMAL)
+      && (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (callee->decl) == BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE
+         || DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (callee->decl) == BUILT_IN_TRAP))
     return false;
 
   if (callee->former_clone_of != node->decl
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr106061.c.jj  2023-01-26 15:40:06.002721103 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr106061.c     2023-01-26 15:41:32.553468886 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* PR ipa/106061 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Og" } */
+
+extern void foo (void);
+
+inline void
+bar (int x)
+{
+  if (x)
+    foo ();
+}
+
+void
+baz (void)
+{
+  bar (0);
+}

        Jakub

Reply via email to