Hi,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:58:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This fixes PR60761 by dumping decl context of function clones
> as origin with <clone> appended instead of <built-in> that now
> appears after we (compared to 4.8) clear DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC.
>
> Thus for the testcase in PR60761 we now print
>
> t.ii: In function 'void foo(int) <clone>':
> t.ii:14:13: warning: iteration 3u invokes undefined behavior
> [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
> z[i] = i;
> ^
> t.ii:13:3: note: containing loop
> for (int i = 0; i < s; i++)
> ^
> t.ii:14:8: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
> z[i] = i;
> ^
>
> instead of
>
> t.ii: In function ‘<built-in>’:
> t.ii:14:13: warning: iteration 3u invokes undefined behavior
> [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
> z[i] = i;
> ^
> t.ii:13:3: note: containing loop
> for (int i = 0; i < s; i++)
> ^
> t.ii:14:8: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
> z[i] = i;
> ^
>
> or with 4.8
>
> t.ii: In function ‘void _Z3fooi.constprop.0()’:
> t.ii:14:8: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
> z[i] = i;
> ^
>
> IMHO an improvement over both variants.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> Honza - does ->former_clone_of apply recursively or do I have to
> loop to find the "ultimate" clone-of? Jason, is <clone> good
> or shall I use sth else (do we annotate in-charge vs. not in-charge
> constructors specially for example?).
>
> Ok?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> 2014-04-08 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
>
> cp/
> * error.c: Include cgraph.h
> (dump_decl): Print function clones as their origin plus <clone>
> appended instead of just <built-in>.
>
> Index: gcc/cp/error.c
> ===================================================================
> *** gcc/cp/error.c (revision 209210)
> --- gcc/cp/error.c (working copy)
> *************** along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
> *** 34,39 ****
> --- 34,40 ----
> #include "pointer-set.h"
> #include "c-family/c-objc.h"
> #include "ubsan.h"
> + #include "cgraph.h"
>
> #include <new> // For placement-new.
>
> *************** dump_decl (cxx_pretty_printer *pp, tree
> *** 1145,1151 ****
>
> case FUNCTION_DECL:
> if (! DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC (t))
> ! pp_string (pp, M_("<built-in>"));
> else if (DECL_GLOBAL_CTOR_P (t) || DECL_GLOBAL_DTOR_P (t))
> dump_global_iord (pp, t);
> else
> --- 1146,1162 ----
>
> case FUNCTION_DECL:
> if (! DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC (t))
> ! {
> ! cgraph_node *node;
> ! if ((node = cgraph_get_node (t))
> ! && node->former_clone_of)
> ! {
> ! dump_decl (pp, node->former_clone_of, flags);
> ! pp_string (pp, M_(" <clone>"));
> ! }
> ! else
> ! pp_string (pp, M_("<built-in>"));
> ! }
> else if (DECL_GLOBAL_CTOR_P (t) || DECL_GLOBAL_DTOR_P (t))
> dump_global_iord (pp, t);
> else
I think you should use DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN instead of
former_clone_of. Not only you avoid using cgraph stuff here but
unlike this patch, it also works for IPA-CP clones of IPA-SRA clones
(yeah, I know, but I bet I can cause the same havoc by ipa-split
instead of ipa-sra, just not as easily).
The testcase is simmilar:
extern int sum;
void do_sum (char *p)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
sum += p[i];
}
static void
foo (int s, int unused)
{
char z[3];
for (int i = 0; i < s; i++)
z[i] = i;
do_sum (z);
}
int
bar (int i)
{
foo (4, 3);
return 0;
}
Thanks,
Martin
