http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fix for PR58252 and PR59226 fixed first two problems contributing to the ICE on
the testcase. The last remaining problem is that our type inheritance graph is
incomplete, it misses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking even deeper, there are two problems. The first is that we miss C in
type hiearchy graph.
C however may be defined in other unit. We do mistake already while walking B.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jan 10 21:34:37 2014
New Revision: 206543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206543root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58585
* ipa-devirt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch seems to work and it seems to give correct answers for various cases
of multiple inheritance I can think of. I would welcome testing on the
original sources and if it looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
The patch seems to work and it seems to give correct answers for various
cases of multiple inheritance I can think of. I would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31762
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31762action=edit
Proposed fix
Hi,
this patch makes us to look harder for correct virtual table. I walk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31763
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31763action=edit
Proposed fix 2
It turns out that in the case of multiple inheritance we may miss vtables
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm,
markus@x4 gcc % cat test.ii
class A {
void m();
};
void A::m() {}
markus@x4 gcc % /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/ -r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
markus@x4 gcc % cat test.ii
class A {
void m();
};
void A::m() {}
markus@x4 gcc % /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/ -r -nostdlib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31766
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31766action=edit
Proposed fix 3
Hi,
it is still lightly tested due lack of time, but fixes the previous
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems we got stuck on solving the virtual vtable representation issues. Here
are some of my experiments.
I think we have two problems, the first one is manifested by this testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Ah, right. We don't have an A binfo in C's base list.
I believe you can distinguish this case by looking at the
BINFO_INHERITANCE_CHAIN of the A binfo; in this case, it should point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Is there way how to keep track of the vtables w/o doing the walk based on
fields instead of BINFO_BASEs?
There should be. Your code change makes sense to me; a primary base will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
It does not fix the problem, unfortunately. This is what happens:
Ah, right. We don't have an A binfo in C's base list.
I believe you can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is the code I am playing with:
/* Walk bases. */
for (i = 0; BINFO_BASE_ITERATE (binfo, i, base_binfo); i++)
/* Walking bases that have no virtual method is pointless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
24 matches
Mail list logo
