| Message ID | 4C2B0B37.70209@codesourcery.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 30 June 2010 11:15, Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com> wrote: > This is a problem that was introduced with the fix for PR31081. Looking > at that PR's history, it seems the inliner has problems with overlapping > lifetimes for things where SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI. > > The solution was to zero-initialize all uninitialized variables when > inlining. This disables warnings for them, which is the regression in > PR39799. > > I've bootstrapped and regression tested the patch below on i686-linux. > This limits the zero-initialization to variables with > SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI. I doubt register pressure is an issue > since we have another rtl-based init-regs pass. Ok? +/* { dg-message "note: '\[^\n'\]*' was declared here" "note: expected" { target *-*-* } 0 } */ Why not put this in the proper line? Does this work at -O{0,1,3,fast,s}? If so, why not put it in torture tests? Otherwise, I would still suggest to put it in c-c++-common. Manuel.
On 06/30/2010 11:26 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > +/* { dg-message "note: '\[^\n'\]*' was declared here" "note: > expected" { target *-*-* } 0 } */ > > Why not put this in the proper line? I was looking at vla-8.c where it's also done this way. Also, seemed more readable. > Does this work at -O{0,1,3,fast,s}? If so, why not put it in torture > tests? We don't warn without optimization. > Otherwise, I would still suggest to put it in c-c++-common. Could do that I guess. Bernd
On 30 June 2010 11:38, Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 06/30/2010 11:26 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote: > >> +/* { dg-message "note: '\[^\n'\]*' was declared here" "note: >> expected" { target *-*-* } 0 } */ >> >> Why not put this in the proper line? > > I was looking at vla-8.c where it's also done this way. Also, seemed > more readable. Past practice is not always a good quality indicator in GCC, specially in the testsuite. You can also specify the correct line number instead of 0. Don't need to move it. But I cannot see how /* { dg-message "note: '\[^\n'\]*' was declared here" "note: expected" { target *-*-* } 0 } */ is more readable than /* { dg-message "note: 'b' was declared here" } */ which tests both the correct location and that we do not generate 'temp.b1' instead of the proper name. Cheers, Manuel.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com> wrote: > This is a problem that was introduced with the fix for PR31081. Looking > at that PR's history, it seems the inliner has problems with overlapping > lifetimes for things where SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI. > > The solution was to zero-initialize all uninitialized variables when > inlining. This disables warnings for them, which is the regression in > PR39799. > > I've bootstrapped and regression tested the patch below on i686-linux. > This limits the zero-initialization to variables with > SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI. I doubt register pressure is an issue > since we have another rtl-based init-regs pass. Ok? Ok if you sorted out the testsuite issues with Manuel. Richard. > > Bernd >
Index: tree-inline.c =================================================================== --- tree-inline.c (revision 161371) +++ tree-inline.c (working copy) @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ remap_ssa_name (tree name, copy_body_dat regions of the CFG, but this is expensive to test. */ if (id->entry_bb && is_gimple_reg (SSA_NAME_VAR (name)) + && SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI (name) && TREE_CODE (SSA_NAME_VAR (name)) != PARM_DECL && (id->entry_bb != EDGE_SUCC (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR, 0)->dest || EDGE_COUNT (id->entry_bb->preds) != 1)) Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-17.c =================================================================== --- testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-17.c (revision 0) +++ testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-17.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wuninitialized" } */ + +inline int foo(int x) +{ + return x; +} +static void bar(int a, int *ptr) +{ + do + { + int b; + if (b < 40) { + ptr[0] = b; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */ + } + b += 1; + ptr++; + } + while (--a != 0); +} +void foobar(int a, int *ptr) +{ + bar(foo(a), ptr); +} + +/* { dg-message "note: '\[^\n'\]*' was declared here" "note: expected" { target *-*-* } 0 } */