On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04 Jun 11:59, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 06/03/14 03:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 2014-06-02 21:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 06/02/14 04:48, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hmm, so if I understand things correctly, src_fun has no loop
>> >>>>>> structures attached, thus there's nothing to copy. Presumably at
>> >>>>>> some later point we build loop structures for the copy from scratch?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I suppose it is just a simple bug with absent NULL pointer check. Here
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> original code:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> /* Duplicate the loop tree, if available and wanted. */
>> >>>>> if (loops_for_fn (src_cfun) != NULL
>> >>>>> && current_loops != NULL)
>> >>>>> {
>> >>>>> copy_loops (id, entry_block_map->loop_father,
>> >>>>> get_loop (src_cfun, 0));
>> >>>>> /* Defer to cfgcleanup to update loop-father fields of
>> >>>>> basic-blocks. */
>> >>>>> loops_state_set (LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP);
>> >>>>> }
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> /* If the loop tree in the source function needed fixup, mark the
>> >>>>> destination loop tree for fixup, too. */
>> >>>>> if (loops_for_fn (src_cfun)->state & LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP)
>> >>>>> loops_state_set (LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP);
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As you may see we have check for absent loops structure in the first
>> >>>>> if-statement and no check in the second one. I hit segfault and added
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> check.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Downthread you indicated you're not in SSA form which might explain the
>> >>>> inconsistency here. If so, then we need to make sure that the loop & df
>> >>>> structures do get set up properly later.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> That is what init_data_structures pass will do for us as Richard pointed.
>> >>> Right?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> loops are set up during the CFG construction and thus are available
>> >> everywhere.
>> >
>> > Which would argue that the hunk that checks for the loop tree's existence
>> > before accessing it should not be needed. Ilya -- is it possible you hit
>> > this prior to Richi's work to build the loop structures as part of CFG
>> > construction and maintain them throughout compilation.
>>
>> That's likely. It's still on my list of janitor things to do to remove all
>> those if (current_loops) checks ...
>
> I tried to remove this loops check and got no failures this time. So, here
> is a new patch version.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on linux-x86_64.
Ok (you can commit this now).
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> --
> gcc/
>
> 2014-06-05 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
>
> * tree-inline.c (tree_function_versioning): Check DF info existence
> before accessing it.
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
> index 4293241..2972346 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
> @@ -5350,8 +5350,9 @@ tree_function_versioning (tree old_decl, tree new_decl,
> DECL_ARGUMENTS (new_decl) = DECL_ARGUMENTS (old_decl);
> initialize_cfun (new_decl, old_decl,
> old_entry_block->count);
> - DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (new_decl)->gimple_df->ipa_pta
> - = id.src_cfun->gimple_df->ipa_pta;
> + if (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (new_decl)->gimple_df)
> + DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (new_decl)->gimple_df->ipa_pta
> + = id.src_cfun->gimple_df->ipa_pta;
>
> /* Copy the function's static chain. */
> p = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (old_decl)->static_chain_decl;
