On 04 Jun 11:59, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 06/03/14 03:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2014-06-02 21:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 06/02/14 04:48, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmm, so if I understand things correctly, src_fun has no loop
> >>>>>> structures attached, thus there's nothing to copy. Presumably at
> >>>>>> some later point we build loop structures for the copy from scratch?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suppose it is just a simple bug with absent NULL pointer check. Here
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> original code:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Duplicate the loop tree, if available and wanted. */
> >>>>> if (loops_for_fn (src_cfun) != NULL
> >>>>> && current_loops != NULL)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> copy_loops (id, entry_block_map->loop_father,
> >>>>> get_loop (src_cfun, 0));
> >>>>> /* Defer to cfgcleanup to update loop-father fields of
> >>>>> basic-blocks. */
> >>>>> loops_state_set (LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* If the loop tree in the source function needed fixup, mark the
> >>>>> destination loop tree for fixup, too. */
> >>>>> if (loops_for_fn (src_cfun)->state & LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP)
> >>>>> loops_state_set (LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you may see we have check for absent loops structure in the first
> >>>>> if-statement and no check in the second one. I hit segfault and added
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> check.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Downthread you indicated you're not in SSA form which might explain the
> >>>> inconsistency here. If so, then we need to make sure that the loop & df
> >>>> structures do get set up properly later.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is what init_data_structures pass will do for us as Richard pointed.
> >>> Right?
> >>
> >>
> >> loops are set up during the CFG construction and thus are available
> >> everywhere.
> >
> > Which would argue that the hunk that checks for the loop tree's existence
> > before accessing it should not be needed. Ilya -- is it possible you hit
> > this prior to Richi's work to build the loop structures as part of CFG
> > construction and maintain them throughout compilation.
>
> That's likely. It's still on my list of janitor things to do to remove all
> those if (current_loops) checks ...
I tried to remove this loops check and got no failures this time. So, here is
a new patch version.
Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2014-06-05 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
* tree-inline.c (tree_function_versioning): Check DF info existence
before accessing it.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
index 4293241..2972346 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
@@ -5350,8 +5350,9 @@ tree_function_versioning (tree old_decl, tree new_decl,
DECL_ARGUMENTS (new_decl) = DECL_ARGUMENTS (old_decl);
initialize_cfun (new_decl, old_decl,
old_entry_block->count);
- DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (new_decl)->gimple_df->ipa_pta
- = id.src_cfun->gimple_df->ipa_pta;
+ if (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (new_decl)->gimple_df)
+ DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (new_decl)->gimple_df->ipa_pta
+ = id.src_cfun->gimple_df->ipa_pta;
/* Copy the function's static chain. */
p = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (old_decl)->static_chain_decl;
