Hi, On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:34:48PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Thanks, I updated the patch to address these issues (attached). > However the patch caused ICE during testing > objc.dg/torture/forward-1.m (and few others but with same ICE): > > Command line options: > /home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/bits-prop-5/bootstrap-build/gcc/xgcc > -B/home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/bits-prop-5/bootstrap-build/gcc/ > /home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/bits-prop-5/gcc/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/torture/forward-1.m > -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O2 -flto > -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects -fgnu-runtime > -I/home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/bits-prop-5/gcc/gcc/testsuite/../../libobjc > -B/home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/bits-prop-5/bootstrap-build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./libobjc/.libs > -L/home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/bits-prop-5/bootstrap-build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./libobjc/.libs > -lobjc -lm -o ./forward-1.exe > > Backtrace: > 0x8c0ed2 ipa_get_param_decl_index_1 > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-prop.c:106 > 0x8b7dbb will_be_nonconstant_predicate > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:2110 > 0x8b7dbb estimate_function_body_sizes > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:2739 > 0x8bae26 compute_inline_parameters(cgraph_node*, bool) > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:3030 > 0x8bb309 inline_analyze_function(cgraph_node*) > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:4157 > 0x11dc402 ipa_icf::sem_function::merge(ipa_icf::sem_item*) > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:1345 > 0x11d6334 ipa_icf::sem_item_optimizer::merge_classes(unsigned int) > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:3461 > 0x11e12c6 ipa_icf::sem_item_optimizer::execute() > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:2636 > 0x11e34d6 ipa_icf_driver > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:3538 > 0x11e34d6 ipa_icf::pass_ipa_icf::execute(function*) > ../../gcc/gcc/ipa-icf.c:3585 > > This appears due to following assert in ipa_get_param_decl_index_1(): > gcc_checking_assert (!flag_wpa); > which was added by Martin's patch introducing ipa_get_type(). > Removing the assert works, however I am not sure if that's the correct thing. > I would be grateful for suggestions on how to handle this case. >
I wrote that the patch was not really tested, I did not think about ICF loading bodies and re-running body-analyses at WPO time. Nevertheless, after some consideration, I think that just removing the assert is fine. After all, the caller must have passed a PARM_DECL if it is doing anything sensible at all and that means we have access to the function body. Thanks, Martin
