[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- Thanks Jonathan.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- [expr.new] p14: An implementation is allowed to omit a call to a replaceable global allocation function (17.6.3.2, 17.6.3.3). When it does so, the storage is instead provided by the implementation or provided by extending the allocation of another new-expression. So the testcase is invalid, and HJ's patch in comment 13 is needed (although see https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils/zojsfb_1fcmpf...@zen.kayari.org/ as I think that has a different problem). So I agree with INVALID.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |15.0 CC||jwakely at redhat dot com --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- While we now take into account that new/delete might clobber global memory (without -fassume-sane-operator-new being implemented) we still elide new/delete pairs. I think that is something the C++ standard allows (even with insane new/delete operator), so I think this is a testsuite bug. But I'm not really a C++ expert here (I'd close the bug as INVALID).
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- A binutils patch is posted at https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/135259.html
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=110137 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- See PR 110137 really.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2024-06-30
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 58541 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58541&action=edit A testcase [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ g++ -c -O2 x.cc -ansi [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ readelf -rW x.o | c++filt | grep -E "(new|delete)" 000a 000c0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 operator new[](unsigned long) - 4 0019 000d0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 operator delete[](void*) - 4 0028 000f0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 operator new[](unsigned long, std::nothrow_t const&) - 4 003c 000d0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 operator delete[](void*) - 4 [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ /usr/gcc-15.0.0-x86-64/bin/g++ -c -O2 x.cc -ansi [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ readelf -rW x.o | c++filt | grep -E "(new|delete)" 000f 000d0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 operator new[](unsigned long, std::nothrow_t const&) - 4 001c 000e0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 operator delete[](void*) - 4 [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ new and delete update "pass". They can't be folded without updating "pass".
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|wrong-code | --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- Removing wrong-code since I don't think this is wrong code, I just think the testcase is incorrect.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) since r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 regression] Binutils|[15 regression] Binutils |testsuite fails 2 tests |testsuite fails 2 tests |(libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) |(libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so) ||since ||r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7 See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=3831 CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com, ||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Sam James --- r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=78104 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- operator new/delete pairs have been optimized since PR 78104 was fixed in GCC 10. Just in this case the array makes the mechanism confused until now.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=104105 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Note the reason why the nothrow variant is not optimized away is recorded as PR 104105.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7 is my guess. The reason is the DSE is able to remove the store due to the clobbers and then dce finally can remove the operator new/operator delete pair.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- r15-571-g1e0ae1f52741f7 is my guess. But this code is questionable.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- I'm going to bisect it next as C++ semantics with new/delete isn't something I'm yet very experienced with.
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- In cgraph: ``` @@ -1222,16 +1222,7 @@ _ZdaPv/82 (void operator delete [](void*)) Referring: Availability: not_available Function flags: replaceable_operator_delete - Called by: main/76 (1073312328 (estimated locally),1.00 per call) main/76 (1073741824 (estimated locally),1.00 per call) - Calls: -_Znam/81 (void* operator new [](std::size_t)) - Type: function - Visibility: semantic_interposition external public visibility_specified - References: - Referring: - Availability: not_available - Function flags: decl_is_malloc replaceable_operator_new - Called by: main/76 (1073741824 (estimated locally),1.00 per call) (can throw external) + Called by: main/76 (1073312328 (estimated locally),1.00 per call) [...] ```
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Between 14 and 15, the main difference is: ``` │ : │ main(): │ /tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:45 │ sub$0x8,%rsp │ -/tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:46 │ - mov$0x58,%edi │ - call e │ - R_X86_64_PLT32 operator new[](unsigned long)-0x4 │ -/tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:46 (discriminator 1) │ - movq $0xa,(%rax) │ -/tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:46 │ - mov%rax,%rdi │ -/tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:47 │ - call 1d │ - R_X86_64_PLT32 operator delete[](void*)-0x4 │ /tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:48 │ lea0x0(%rip),%rsi │ R_X86_64_PC32 std::nothrow-0x4 │ mov$0x58,%edi │ - call 2e │ + call 15 │ R_X86_64_PLT32 operator new[](unsigned long, std::nothrow_t const&)-0x4 │ /tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:48 (discriminator 1) │ test %rax,%rax │ - je 42 │ - movq $0xa,(%rax) │ -/tmp/gcc-binutils-PR115712/dl5.cc:48 (discriminator 4) │ + je 22 ```
[Bug tree-optimization/115712] [15 regression] Binutils testsuite fails 2 tests (libnew1a.so, libnew1b.so)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 58540 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58540&action=edit gcc-binutils-PR115712.tar.xz g++ -g -O2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -ansi -c dl5.cc -o dl5.o g++ -g -O2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -ansi -fPIC -c del.cc -o del.o g++ -g -O2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -ansi -fPIC -c new.cc -o new.o g++ -o libnew1a.so -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions,--dynamic-list-cpp-new del.o new.o g++ o dl5a -Wl,--no-as-needed libnew1a.so dl5.o # Prints "FAIL" if dl5.o is built with GCC 15, but "PASS" if dl5.o is built with GCC 14 LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./dl5a
