| Message ID | 201011292027.49783.ebotcazou@adacore.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
> OK, I acted boldly and tested the complete change. :-) > Bootstrapped/regtested and LTO-bootstrapped (for C/Ada) on > x86_64-suse-linux, OK for mainline? There was a new C++ failure among the existing ones: eric@atlantis:~/build/gcc/native32> gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -S vla9.C vla9.C: In function 'void f(double*, int)': vla9.C:13:44: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical types double [(((unsigned int)(((int)ny) + -0x000000001)) + 1)] and double [(((unsigned int)(((int)ny) + -0x000000001)) + 1)] Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING if (USE_CANONICAL_TYPES) { bool result = structural_comptypes (t1, t2, strict); if (result && TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) != TYPE_CANONICAL (t2)) /* The two types are structurally equivalent, but their canonical types were different. This is a failure of the canonical type propagation code.*/ internal_error ("canonical types differ for identical types %T and %T", t1, t2); else if (!result && TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) == TYPE_CANONICAL (t2)) /* Two types are structurally different, but the canonical types are the same. This means we were over-eager in assigning canonical types. */ internal_error ("same canonical type node for different types %T and %T", t1, t2); return result; }
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote: >> OK, I acted boldly and tested the complete change. :-) >> Bootstrapped/regtested and LTO-bootstrapped (for C/Ada) on >> x86_64-suse-linux, OK for mainline? > > There was a new C++ failure among the existing ones: > > eric@atlantis:~/build/gcc/native32> gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -S vla9.C > vla9.C: In function 'void f(double*, int)': > vla9.C:13:44: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical > types double [(((unsigned int)(((int)ny) + -0x000000001)) + 1)] and double > [(((unsigned int)(((int)ny) + -0x000000001)) + 1)] > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. Hm. So it seems that the C++ frontend relies on TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY here (probably rightfully so at least for templates and [] when looking at its comp_array_types). Bah, looks like the patch is wrong then, unless we start unifying non-INTEGER_CST range types by for example using operand_equal_p for TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE in type_hash_eq. But I guess that's nothing for stage3. So your original patch is ok. Thanks for trying, Richard. > #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING > if (USE_CANONICAL_TYPES) > { > bool result = structural_comptypes (t1, t2, strict); > > if (result && TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) != TYPE_CANONICAL (t2)) > /* The two types are structurally equivalent, but their > canonical types were different. This is a failure of the > canonical type propagation code.*/ > internal_error > ("canonical types differ for identical types %T and %T", > t1, t2); > else if (!result && TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) == TYPE_CANONICAL (t2)) > /* Two types are structurally different, but the canonical > types are the same. This means we were over-eager in > assigning canonical types. */ > internal_error > ("same canonical type node for different types %T and %T", > t1, t2); > > return result; > } > > -- > Eric Botcazou >
Index: tree.c =================================================================== --- tree.c (revision 167201) +++ tree.c (working copy) @@ -7096,6 +7096,7 @@ static tree build_range_type_1 (tree type, tree lowval, tree highval, bool shared) { tree itype = make_node (INTEGER_TYPE); + hashval_t hashcode = 0; TREE_TYPE (itype) = type; @@ -7109,24 +7110,17 @@ build_range_type_1 (tree type, tree lowv TYPE_ALIGN (itype) = TYPE_ALIGN (type); TYPE_USER_ALIGN (itype) = TYPE_USER_ALIGN (type); - if ((TYPE_MIN_VALUE (itype) - && TREE_CODE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (itype)) != INTEGER_CST) + if (!shared + || (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (itype) + && TREE_CODE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (itype)) != INTEGER_CST) || (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (itype) && TREE_CODE (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (itype)) != INTEGER_CST)) - { - /* Since we cannot reliably merge this type, we need to compare it using - structural equality checks. */ - SET_TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY (itype); - return itype; - } + return itype; - if (shared) - { - hashval_t hash = iterative_hash_expr (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (itype), 0); - hash = iterative_hash_expr (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (itype), hash); - hash = iterative_hash_hashval_t (TYPE_HASH (type), hash); - itype = type_hash_canon (hash, itype); - } + hashcode = iterative_hash_expr (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (itype), hashcode); + hashcode = iterative_hash_expr (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (itype), hashcode); + hashcode = iterative_hash_hashval_t (TYPE_HASH (type), hashcode); + itype = type_hash_canon (hashcode, itype); return itype; } @@ -7250,16 +7244,11 @@ build_array_type_1 (tree elt_type, tree if (TYPE_CANONICAL (t) == t) { - if (TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY_P (elt_type) - || (index_type && TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY_P (index_type))) + if (TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY_P (elt_type)) SET_TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY (t); - else if (TYPE_CANONICAL (elt_type) != elt_type - || (index_type && TYPE_CANONICAL (index_type) != index_type)) + else if (TYPE_CANONICAL (elt_type) != elt_type) TYPE_CANONICAL (t) - = build_array_type_1 (TYPE_CANONICAL (elt_type), - index_type - ? TYPE_CANONICAL (index_type) : NULL_TREE, - shared); + = build_array_type_1 (TYPE_CANONICAL (elt_type), index_type, shared); } return t;
> Sooo - can you check sth along the above instead? OK, I acted boldly and tested the complete change. :-) Bootstrapped/regtested and LTO-bootstrapped (for C/Ada) on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for mainline? 2010-11-29 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> * tree.c (build_range_type_1): Do not SET_TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY. (build_array_type_1): Do not consider TYPE_STRUCTURAL_EQUALITY_P and TYPE_CANONICAL for the index type.