[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell --- Applied to gcc-5 branch r234653.
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Thu Mar 31 20:51:20 2016 New Revision: 234653 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234653&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/70393 * varasm.c (output_constructor_regular_field): Flush bitfield earlier. Assert we don't want to move backwards. cp/ PR c++/70393 * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): Keep CONSTRUCTOR elements in field order. testsuite/ PR c++/70393 * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-virtual6.C: New. Added: branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-virtual6.C Modified: branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/cp/constexpr.c branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/varasm.c
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Should it be fixed on gcc-5-branch too?
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell --- Fixed r234636.
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Thu Mar 31 15:30:33 2016 New Revision: 234636 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234636&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/70393 * varasm.c (output_constructor_regular_field): Flush bitfield earlier. Assert we don't want to move backwards. cp/ * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): Keep CONSTRUCTOR elements in field order. testsuite/ * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-virtual6.C: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-virtual6.C Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/constexpr.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/varasm.c
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell --- Indeed, manually editing the assembly to such an initializer results in a working program. The CONSTRUCTOR created for ab's DECL_INITIAL has the correct things in it, but in declaration order. I.e. it looks like: IDX=field-for-A-base VAL=CONSTRUCTOR (...) IDX=field-for-B-base VAL=CONSTRUCTOR (...) I think CONSTRUCTOR_ELTs are expected to be in ascending placement order?
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell --- We're turning 'ab's initializer into a static one (so the lack of a dynamic initializer is a red herring). But we're flubbing the form of that initializer because the placement of AB's bases is not their declaration order. B is chosen as the primary base, so AB is laid out as: AB size 24 align 8 A @ 16 B @ 0 The emitted initializer is: _ZL2ab: .zero 16 .long 1 <-- A::a .quad _ZTV2AB+16 .quad 2 <-- B::element (I modified the testcase so the NSDMIs are distinct non-zero values). The 16 zero bytes appear to be skipping over the B sub-object to place A's initializer. We should be emitting something more like: _ZL2ab: .quad _ZTV2AB+16 .quad 2 <--B::element .long 1 <-- A::a .zero 4 <-- tail padding
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Started with r217664. I assume that's with -std=c++11? I wonder which commit introduced the regression when the test case is compiled with -std=c++14.
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Yeah, that was with -std=c++0x. With -std=c++1y it started one revision earlier (r217663).
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |5.4 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r217664.
[Bug c++/70393] [5/6 Regression] Miscompilation: missing constructor call for static object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70393 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-03-24 Known to work||4.9.3 Summary|Miscompilation: missing |[5/6 Regression] |constructor call for static |Miscompilation: missing |object |constructor call for static ||object Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- ubsan prints lots of errors confirming that the vptr is not setup up correctly.
