Hello Jeff,
please find updated patch attached
03.06.2015 00:18, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 04:12 AM, Alexander Basov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> this patch fixes ICE when compiling naked functions for arm targets.
>> It prevents register allocation for non-register things like volatile,
>> float, BLKMode vars.
>>
>> Tested on trunk with arm-v7ar-linux-gnueabi on qemu vexpress board.
>>
>> -- Alexander
>>
>>
>> pr64744.patch
>>
>>
>> 2015-06-01 Alexander Basov<coo...@gmail.com>
>>
>> PR middle-end/64744
>> PR middle-end/48470
>> PR middle-end/43404
>>
>> * gcc/cfgexpand.c (expand_one_var): Add check if stack is
>> going to
>> be used in naked function.
>> * gcc/expr.c (expand_expr_addr_expr_1): Remove exscess checking
>> whether expression should not reside in MEM.
>> * gcc/function.c (use_register_for_decl): Do not use
>> registers for
>> non-register things (volatile, float, BLKMode) in naked
>> functions.
> Lose the "gcc/" prefix on these entries as there's a ChangeLog in the
> gcc/ subdirectory.
>
>>
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43404.c : New testcase.
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr48470.c : New testcase.
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-1.c : New testcase.
>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-2.c : New testcase.
> Similarly, lose the gcc/testsuite prefix on these entries as this will
> be installed in gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog. However, do copy the PR
> markers.
>
>
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
>> index b190f91..c6db8a9 100644
>> --- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
>> +++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
>> @@ -1382,7 +1382,15 @@ expand_one_var (tree var, bool toplevel, bool
>> really_expand)
>> else
>> {
>> if (really_expand)
>> - expand_one_stack_var (origvar);
>> + {
>> + if (!targetm.calls.allocate_stack_slots_for_args ())
>> + error ("cannot allocate stack for variable %q+D, naked
>> function.",
>> + var);
>> +
>> + expand_one_stack_var (origvar);
>> + }
> So how do you know ORIGVAR is an argument here before issuing the
> error? ie, shouldn't you verify that the underlying object is a
> PARM_DECL? If there's some way we already know we're dealing with a
> PARM_DECL, then just say so.
In case of naked function stack should not be used not only for function
args, but also for any local variables.
So, i think we don't need to check if underlying object is a PARM_DECL.
>
> I'd rewrite the user_register_for_decl ChangeLog entry to
> * function.c (use_register_for_decl): Correct location
> of allocate_stack_slot_for_args test.
>
>
> With those changes this should be ready to go, please make the updates
> and repost.
>
> Thanks,
> jeff
--
Alexander
commit 09f6c3e35a2e2ac87486b546b139ba9b8b8e52a1
Author: Alexander <coo...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jun 3 22:41:58 2015 +0300
2015-06-01 Alexander Basov <coo...@gmail.com>
PR middle-end/64744
PR middle-end/48470
PR middle-end/43404
* cfgexpand.c (expand_one_var): Add check if stack is going to
be used in naked function.
* expr.c (expand_expr_addr_expr_1): Remove exscess checking
whether expression should not reside in MEM.
* function.c (use_register_for_decl): Correct location
of allocate_stack_slot_for_args test.
2015-06-01 Alexander Basov <coo...@gmail.com>
PR middle-end/64744
PR middle-end/48470
PR middle-end/43404
* testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43404.c: New testcase.
* testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr48470.c: New testcase.
* testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-1.c: New testcase.
* testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-2.c: New testcase.
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index b190f91..c6db8a9 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
@@ -1382,7 +1382,15 @@ expand_one_var (tree var, bool toplevel, bool really_expand)
else
{
if (really_expand)
- expand_one_stack_var (origvar);
+ {
+ if (!targetm.calls.allocate_stack_slots_for_args ())
+ error ("cannot allocate stack for variable %q+D, naked function.",
+ var);
+
+ expand_one_stack_var (origvar);
+ }
+
+
return tree_to_uhwi (DECL_SIZE_UNIT (var));
}
return 0;
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 5a931dc..4d728bc 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -7646,15 +7646,7 @@ expand_expr_addr_expr_1 (tree exp, rtx target, machine_mode tmode,
marked TREE_ADDRESSABLE, which will be either a front-end
or a tree optimizer bug. */
- if (TREE_ADDRESSABLE (exp)
- && ! MEM_P (result)
- && ! targetm.calls.allocate_stack_slots_for_args ())
- {
- error ("local frame unavailable (naked function?)");
- return result;
- }
- else
- gcc_assert (MEM_P (result));
+ gcc_assert (MEM_P (result));
result = XEXP (result, 0);
/* ??? Is this needed anymore? */
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 7d2d7e4..0cafe12 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -2121,9 +2121,6 @@ aggregate_value_p (const_tree exp, const_tree fntype)
bool
use_register_for_decl (const_tree decl)
{
- if (!targetm.calls.allocate_stack_slots_for_args ())
- return true;
-
/* Honor volatile. */
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (decl))
return false;
@@ -2151,6 +2148,9 @@ use_register_for_decl (const_tree decl)
if (flag_float_store && FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl)))
return false;
+ if (!targetm.calls.allocate_stack_slots_for_args ())
+ return true;
+
/* If we're not interested in tracking debugging information for
this decl, then we can certainly put it in a register. */
if (DECL_IGNORED_P (decl))
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43404.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43404.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4f2291d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43404.c
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target naked_functions } */
+/* { dg-options "-O0" } */
+
+__attribute__ ((naked))
+void __data_abort(void)
+{
+ long foo; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+ long* bar = &foo;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr48470.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr48470.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..20343e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr48470.c
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target naked_functions } */
+/* { dg-options "-O0" } */
+
+extern void g(int *x);
+
+void __attribute__((naked)) f(void)
+{
+ int x = 0; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+ g(&x);
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4029303
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target naked_functions } */
+/* { dg-options "-O0" } */
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo1 ()
+{
+ int aa = 0;
+ int ab = {0};
+}
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo2() {
+ char aa [ ] = {}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+ char ab [1] = {};
+ char ac [2] = {}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+ char ad [3] = {}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+}
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo3() {
+ char aa [1] = {0};
+ char ab [2] = {0}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+ char ac [3] = {0}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+ char ad [4] = {0}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+}
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo4() {
+ char aa [2] = {0,0}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+}
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo5() {
+ char aa [3] = {0,0,0}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+}
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo6() {
+ char aa [4] = {0,0,0,0}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-2.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d33ea7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr64744-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target naked_functions } */
+/* { dg-options "-O0" } */
+
+struct s {
+ char a;
+ int b;
+};
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void foo () {
+ struct s x = {}; /* { dg-error "cannot allocate stack for variable" } */
+}
