On Sat, 30 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Joseph, Richard,
> this is patch implementing the ENUM/INGEGER globbing and also
> POINTER/REFERENCE
> (though I don't know if that one follows by some standard rules).
> Joseph, does the attached testcase make sense for you? Is it defined? It is my
> first attempt to really interpret C standard to detail.
>
> Ideally I would like to have testcases for all the globbing we do and
> reasoning
> why it is needed.
>
> Bootstraped/regtested ppc64le-linux. OK?
Works for me. (what about BOOLEAN_TYPE?)
Thanks,
Richard.
> Honza
>
> * lto.c (hash_canonical_type): Use tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging.
>
> * tree.h (tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging): New function.
> * tree.c (gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p): Use
> tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging..
> * gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_0.c: New testcase.
> * gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_1.c: New testcase.
> Index: lto/lto.c
> ===================================================================
> --- lto/lto.c (revision 223877)
> +++ lto/lto.c (working copy)
> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@
> smaller sets; when searching for existing matching types to merge,
> only existing types having the same features as the new type will be
> checked. */
> - hstate.add_int (TREE_CODE (type));
> + hstate.add_int (tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging (TREE_CODE (type)));
> hstate.add_int (TYPE_MODE (type));
>
> /* Incorporate common features of numerical types. */
> Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_0.c
> ===================================================================
> --- testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_0.c (revision 0)
> +++ testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_0.c (working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> +/* By C standard Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a
> signed
> + integer, type, or an unsigned integer type. The choice of type is
> + implementation-defined. Check that enum and unsigned int match. */
> +unsigned int a;
> +unsigned int *b;
> +void t();
> +
> +void reset ()
> +{
> + asm("":"=r"(a):"0"(0));
> +}
> +int
> +main()
> +{
> + asm("":"=r"(a):"0"(1));
> + asm("":"=r"(b):"0"(&a));
> + t();
> + return 0;
> +}
> Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_1.c
> ===================================================================
> --- testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_1.c (revision 0)
> +++ testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_1.c (working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> +enum a {test1, test2};
> +enum a a;
> +enum a *b;
> +
> +void reset (void);
> +
> +void
> +t()
> +{
> + if (a != test2)
> + __builtin_abort ();
> + if (*b != test2)
> + __builtin_abort ();
> + reset ();
> + if (a != test1)
> + __builtin_abort ();
> + if (*b != test1)
> + __builtin_abort ();
> +}
> Index: tree.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tree.c (revision 223877)
> +++ tree.c (working copy)
> @@ -12877,7 +12877,8 @@
> return TYPE_CANONICAL (t1) == TYPE_CANONICAL (t2);
>
> /* Can't be the same type if the types don't have the same code. */
> - if (TREE_CODE (t1) != TREE_CODE (t2))
> + if (tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging (TREE_CODE (t1))
> + != tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging (TREE_CODE (t2)))
> return false;
>
> /* Qualifiers do not matter for canonical type comparison purposes. */
> Index: tree.h
> ===================================================================
> --- tree.h (revision 223877)
> +++ tree.h (working copy)
> @@ -4598,7 +4598,28 @@
> extern void DEBUG_FUNCTION verify_type (const_tree t);
> extern bool gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p (const_tree, const_tree,
> bool trust_type_canonical =
> true);
> +/* Return simplified tree code of type that is used for canonical type
> merging. */
> +inline enum tree_code
> +tree_code_for_canonical_type_merging (enum tree_code code)
> +{
> + /* By C standard, each enumerated type shall be compatible with char,
> + a signed integer, or an unsigned integer. The choice of type is
> + implementation defined (in our case it depends on -fshort-enum).
>
> + For this reason we make no distinction between ENUMERAL_TYPE and INTEGER
> + type and compare only by their signedness and precision. */
> + if (code == ENUMERAL_TYPE)
> + return INTEGER_TYPE;
> + /* To allow inter-operability between languages having references and
> + C, we consider reference types and pointers alike. Note that this is
> + not strictly necessary for C-Fortran 2008 interoperability because
> + Fortran define C_PTR type that needs to be compatible with C pointers
> + and we handle this one as ptr_type_node. */
> + if (code == REFERENCE_TYPE)
> + return POINTER_TYPE;
> + return code;
> +}
> +
> #define tree_map_eq tree_map_base_eq
> extern unsigned int tree_map_hash (const void *);
> #define tree_map_marked_p tree_map_base_marked_p
>
>
--
Richard Biener <[email protected]>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham
Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
