https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22820
Bug ID: 22820
Summary: ICF mismerges two very similar functions
Product: binutils
Version: 2.30
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gold
Assignee: ccoutant at gmail dot com
Reporter: steinar+binutils at gunderson dot no
CC: ian at airs dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
We had a fairly bad data dictionary corruption bug in MySQL, which we
eventually traced down to gold mistakenly ICF-ing two functions that are
actually different. My understanding of the problem is that the two functions
are _bytewise_ identical, but since they refer to different constants using
%rip-relative addressing, they still would execute differently, and thus should
not be merged.
Here's a test case (compiled with GCC 7.3):
atum17:~/reduce5> cat dictionary_impl.cc
#include <string>
int func(std::string);
int get_actual_P_S_version() {
return func("PS_VERSION");
}
int get_actual_I_S_version() {
return func("IS_VERSION");
}
atum17:~/reduce5> g++ -O2 -fPIC -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -o
dictionary_impl.o -c dictionary_impl.cc
atum17:~/reduce5> g++ -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--icf=safe -shared -o
dictionary_impl.so dictionary_impl.o
atum17:~/reduce5> nm --demangle dictionary_impl.so | grep get_actual
0000000000000a50 T get_actual_I_S_version()
0000000000000a50 T get_actual_P_S_version()
So the two functions have received the same address in the binary, and thus
were incorrectly merged.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
