On 10/13/2017 07:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/12/2017 11:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 10/11/2017 12:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> 2017-10-10 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>> >>> PR tree-optimization/82493 >>> * sbitmap.c (bitmap_bit_in_range_p): Fix the implementation. >>> (test_range_functions): New function. >>> (sbitmap_c_tests): Likewise. >>> * selftest-run-tests.c (selftest::run_tests): Run new tests. >>> * selftest.h (sbitmap_c_tests): New function. >> I went ahead and committed this along with a patch to fix the off-by-one >> error in live_bytes_read. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86. >> >> Actual patch attached for archival purposes. >> >> Jeff >> > Hello. > > I wrote a patch that adds various gcc_checking_asserts and I hit following: > > ./xgcc -B. > /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_result_12.f90 -c > -O2 > during GIMPLE pass: dse > /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_result_12.f90:7:0: > > program testat > > internal compiler error: in bitmap_check_index, at sbitmap.h:105 > 0x1c014c1 bitmap_check_index > ../../gcc/sbitmap.h:105 > 0x1c01fa7 bitmap_bit_in_range_p(simple_bitmap_def const*, unsigned int, > unsigned int) > ../../gcc/sbitmap.c:335 > 0x1179002 live_bytes_read > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:497 > 0x117935a dse_classify_store > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:595 > 0x1179947 dse_dom_walker::dse_optimize_stmt(gimple_stmt_iterator*) > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:786 > 0x1179b6e dse_dom_walker::before_dom_children(basic_block_def*) > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:853 > 0x1a6f659 dom_walker::walk(basic_block_def*) > ../../gcc/domwalk.c:308 > 0x1179cb9 execute > ../../gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c:907 > > Where we call: > Breakpoint 1, bitmap_bit_in_range_p (bmap=0x29d6cd0, start=0, end=515) at > ../../gcc/sbitmap.c:335 > 335 bitmap_check_index (bmap, end); > (gdb) p *bmap > $1 = {n_bits = 256, size = 4, elms = {255}} > > Is it a valid call or should caller check indices? > > Martin > > > 0002-Add-gcc_checking_assert-for-sbitmap.c.patch > > > From ba3d597be70b8329abafe92da868ab5250610840 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:39:08 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Add gcc_checking_assert for sbitmap.c. > > --- > gcc/sbitmap.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > gcc/sbitmap.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+) So the only change that concerned me was the bitmap_subset_p test. In theory they don't need to be the same size for that test. However, I think we should go ahead with your patch as-is and deal with that possibility if and when we need the capability to do a subset test with different sized bitmaps.
jeff