Add clobbers for callee copied argument temporaries (PR sanitizer/81715, PR testsuite/83882)

Message ID 20180117200749.GX2063@tucnak
State New
Headers show
Series
  • Add clobbers for callee copied argument temporaries (PR sanitizer/81715, PR testsuite/83882)
Related show

Commit Message

Jakub Jelinek Jan. 17, 2018, 8:07 p.m.
Hi!

PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter
targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only
bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase
with hppa.

John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies
default change?

Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?

2018-01-17  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR sanitizer/81715
	PR testsuite/83882
	* function.h (gimplify_parameters): Add gimple_seq * argument.
	* function.c: Include gimple.h and options.h.
	(gimplify_parameters): Add cleanup argument, add CLOBBER stmts
	for the added local temporaries if needed.
	* gimplify.c (gimplify_body): Adjust gimplify_parameters caller,
	if there are any parameter cleanups, wrap whole body into a
	try/finally with the cleanups.


	Jakub

Comments

John David Anglin Jan. 17, 2018, 9:42 p.m. | #1
On 2018-01-17 3:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> default change?

>

> Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?

I'll test, probably starting build this evening.

I only changed the linux target.  The hpux and bsd targets are still 
callee copies.

Dave

-- 
John David Anglin  dave.anglin@bell.net
Richard Biener Jan. 18, 2018, 8:10 a.m. | #2
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> Hi!

> 

> PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> with hppa.


Looks reasonable.

> John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> default change?

> 

> Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?


How's that communicated to the middle-end anyways?

Richard.

> 2018-01-17  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

> 

> 	PR sanitizer/81715

> 	PR testsuite/83882

> 	* function.h (gimplify_parameters): Add gimple_seq * argument.

> 	* function.c: Include gimple.h and options.h.

> 	(gimplify_parameters): Add cleanup argument, add CLOBBER stmts

> 	for the added local temporaries if needed.

> 	* gimplify.c (gimplify_body): Adjust gimplify_parameters caller,

> 	if there are any parameter cleanups, wrap whole body into a

> 	try/finally with the cleanups.

> 

> --- gcc/function.h.jj	2018-01-03 10:19:53.858533740 +0100

> +++ gcc/function.h	2018-01-16 14:31:21.409972177 +0100

> @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ extern bool initial_value_entry (int i,

>  extern void instantiate_decl_rtl (rtx x);

>  extern int aggregate_value_p (const_tree, const_tree);

>  extern bool use_register_for_decl (const_tree);

> -extern gimple_seq gimplify_parameters (void);

> +extern gimple_seq gimplify_parameters (gimple_seq *);

>  extern void locate_and_pad_parm (machine_mode, tree, int, int, int,

>  				 tree, struct args_size *,

>  				 struct locate_and_pad_arg_data *);

> --- gcc/function.c.jj	2018-01-12 11:35:48.901222595 +0100

> +++ gcc/function.c	2018-01-16 15:13:22.165665047 +0100

> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.

>  #include "tree-ssa.h"

>  #include "stringpool.h"

>  #include "attribs.h"

> +#include "gimple.h"

> +#include "options.h"

>  

>  /* So we can assign to cfun in this file.  */

>  #undef cfun

> @@ -3993,7 +3995,7 @@ gimplify_parm_type (tree *tp, int *walk_

>     statements to add to the beginning of the function.  */

>  

>  gimple_seq

> -gimplify_parameters (void)

> +gimplify_parameters (gimple_seq *cleanup)

>  {

>    struct assign_parm_data_all all;

>    tree parm;

> @@ -4058,6 +4060,16 @@ gimplify_parameters (void)

>  		  else if (TREE_CODE (type) == COMPLEX_TYPE

>  			   || TREE_CODE (type) == VECTOR_TYPE)

>  		    DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P (local) = 1;

> +

> +		  if (!is_gimple_reg (local)

> +		      && flag_stack_reuse != SR_NONE)

> +		    {

> +		      tree clobber = build_constructor (type, NULL);

> +		      gimple *clobber_stmt;

> +		      TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (clobber) = 1;

> +		      clobber_stmt = gimple_build_assign (local, clobber);

> +		      gimple_seq_add_stmt (cleanup, clobber_stmt);

> +		    }

>  		}

>  	      else

>  		{

> --- gcc/gimplify.c.jj	2018-01-16 12:21:15.895859416 +0100

> +++ gcc/gimplify.c	2018-01-16 14:41:27.643872081 +0100

> @@ -12589,7 +12589,7 @@ gbind *

>  gimplify_body (tree fndecl, bool do_parms)

>  {

>    location_t saved_location = input_location;

> -  gimple_seq parm_stmts, seq;

> +  gimple_seq parm_stmts, parm_cleanup = NULL, seq;

>    gimple *outer_stmt;

>    gbind *outer_bind;

>    struct cgraph_node *cgn;

> @@ -12628,7 +12628,7 @@ gimplify_body (tree fndecl, bool do_parm

>  

>    /* Resolve callee-copies.  This has to be done before processing

>       the body so that DECL_VALUE_EXPR gets processed correctly.  */

> -  parm_stmts = do_parms ? gimplify_parameters () : NULL;

> +  parm_stmts = do_parms ? gimplify_parameters (&parm_cleanup) : NULL;

>  

>    /* Gimplify the function's body.  */

>    seq = NULL;

> @@ -12657,6 +12657,13 @@ gimplify_body (tree fndecl, bool do_parm

>        tree parm;

>  

>        gimplify_seq_add_seq (&parm_stmts, gimple_bind_body (outer_bind));

> +      if (parm_cleanup)

> +	{

> +	  gtry *g = gimple_build_try (parm_stmts, parm_cleanup,

> +				      GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY);

> +	  parm_stmts = NULL;

> +	  gimple_seq_add_stmt (&parm_stmts, g);

> +	}

>        gimple_bind_set_body (outer_bind, parm_stmts);

>  

>        for (parm = DECL_ARGUMENTS (current_function_decl);

> 

> 	Jakub

> 

> 


-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
Jakub Jelinek Jan. 18, 2018, 8:14 a.m. | #3
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:10:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> 

> > Hi!

> > 

> > PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> > targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> > bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> > with hppa.

> 

> Looks reasonable.

> 

> > John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> > default change?

> > 

> > Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?

> 

> How's that communicated to the middle-end anyways?


You mean the callee copies stuff?  gimplify_parameters creates new
temporaries, assigns the parameter to them, set DECL_VALUE_EXPR on the
parameters to the temporary and at the end of function clears
DECL_VALUE_EXPR and with this patch adds a CLOBBER in a cleanup as well.

	Jakub
Richard Biener Jan. 18, 2018, 8:18 a.m. | #4
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:10:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:

> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> > 

> > > Hi!

> > > 

> > > PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> > > targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> > > bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> > > with hppa.

> > 

> > Looks reasonable.

> > 

> > > John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> > > default change?

> > > 

> > > Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?

> > 

> > How's that communicated to the middle-end anyways?

> 

> You mean the callee copies stuff?  gimplify_parameters creates new

> temporaries, assigns the parameter to them, set DECL_VALUE_EXPR on the

> parameters to the temporary and at the end of function clears

> DECL_VALUE_EXPR and with this patch adds a CLOBBER in a cleanup as well.


No, I meant whether the target wants this or not.

Richard.
Jakub Jelinek Jan. 18, 2018, 8:23 a.m. | #5
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:18:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> 

> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:10:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:

> > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> > > 

> > > > Hi!

> > > > 

> > > > PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> > > > targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> > > > bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> > > > with hppa.

> > > 

> > > Looks reasonable.

> > > 

> > > > John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> > > > default change?

> > > > 

> > > > Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?

> > > 

> > > How's that communicated to the middle-end anyways?

> > 

> > You mean the callee copies stuff?  gimplify_parameters creates new

> > temporaries, assigns the parameter to them, set DECL_VALUE_EXPR on the

> > parameters to the temporary and at the end of function clears

> > DECL_VALUE_EXPR and with this patch adds a CLOBBER in a cleanup as well.

> 

> No, I meant whether the target wants this or not.


Ah, that.  Through targetm.calls.callee_copies hook.

	Jakub
Richard Biener Jan. 18, 2018, 8:35 a.m. | #6
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:18:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:

> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> > 

> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:10:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:

> > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> > > > 

> > > > > Hi!

> > > > > 

> > > > > PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> > > > > targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> > > > > bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> > > > > with hppa.

> > > > 

> > > > Looks reasonable.

> > > > 

> > > > > John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> > > > > default change?

> > > > > 

> > > > > Or should we not care anymore if there aren't any similar targets left?

> > > > 

> > > > How's that communicated to the middle-end anyways?

> > > 

> > > You mean the callee copies stuff?  gimplify_parameters creates new

> > > temporaries, assigns the parameter to them, set DECL_VALUE_EXPR on the

> > > parameters to the temporary and at the end of function clears

> > > DECL_VALUE_EXPR and with this patch adds a CLOBBER in a cleanup as well.

> > 

> > No, I meant whether the target wants this or not.

> 

> Ah, that.  Through targetm.calls.callee_copies hook.


So there are quite a few more callee copies targets then, notably
unconditionally epiphany, mmix, mn10300 and v850 and conditionally
a few more, for example mips.

Richard.
John David Anglin Jan. 18, 2018, 1:10 p.m. | #7
On 2018-01-17 3:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> with hppa.

>

> John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> default change?

On hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, pr81715.C now passes.

However, there are some new fails in the gcc and g++ suites:

FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O0  execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O0 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O1 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O2 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
-funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O3 -g -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -Os -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O0  execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O0 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O1 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O2 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
-funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O3 -g -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -Os -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O0  execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O0 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O1 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O2 -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
-funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O3 -g -fpic execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -Os -fpic execution test

FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O0  execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O1  execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O2  execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -Os  execution test

FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/pr83487-1 c_compat_y_tst.o compile
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/pr83487-2 c_compat_y_tst.o compile

Dave

-- 
John David Anglin  dave.anglin@bell.net
Jakub Jelinek Jan. 18, 2018, 5:51 p.m. | #8
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:10:50AM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2018-01-17 3:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> > PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

> > targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

> > bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

> > with hppa.

> > 

> > John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

> > default change?

> On hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, pr81715.C now passes.

> 

> However, there are some new fails in the gcc and g++ suites:


That is really weird, at least in the cross-compiler on throw-1.C I don't
see with -mno-caller-copies the new code triggering at all.
Tried both hppa-linux and hppa-hpux crosses.
Furthermore, throw-1.C has:
/* { dg-skip-if "Stack alignment is too small" { hppa*-*-hpux* } } */
so I wonder how it comes you see them run on hpux at all.
I don't have hpux or hppa-linux fenv.h, so can't check pr52451.c.
What kind of error would be on pr83487-*?

If any of those are really caused by my patch, I'd be interest to see
e.g. *.gimple and *.optimized dumps with and without the patch
(rather than reverting the whole patch, it should be enough to hand edit
in function.c the
&& flag_stack_reuse != SR_NONE
part and change it to && 0 && flag_stack_reuse != SR_NONE or similar.

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O0  execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O0 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O1 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O2 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer

> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -O3 -g -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-1.C   -Os -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O0  execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O0 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O1 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O2 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer

> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -O3 -g -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-2.C   -Os -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O0  execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O0 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O1 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O2 -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer

> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -O3 -g -fpic execution test

> FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/throw-4.C   -Os -fpic execution test

> 

> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O0  execution test

> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O1  execution test

> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O2  execution test

> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -O3 -g  execution test

> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c   -Os  execution test

> 

> FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/pr83487-1 c_compat_y_tst.o compile

> FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/pr83487-2 c_compat_y_tst.o compile

> 

> Dave

> 

> -- 

> John David Anglin  dave.anglin@bell.net


	Jakub
John David Anglin Jan. 18, 2018, 7:44 p.m. | #9
On 2018-01-18 12:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:10:50AM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:

>> On 2018-01-17 3:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

>>> PR83882 complains that PR81715 testcase fails on callee copies parameter

>>> targets.  The following patch ought to fix that, but I have only

>>> bootstrapped/regtested it on x86_64-linux and i686-linux + on the testcase

>>> with hppa.

>>>

>>> John, do you think you could test this on hppa without the callee copies

>>> default change?

>> On hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, pr81715.C now passes.

>>

>> However, there are some new fails in the gcc and g++ suites:

> That is really weird, at least in the cross-compiler on throw-1.C I don't

> see with -mno-caller-copies the new code triggering at all.

> Tried both hppa-linux and hppa-hpux crosses.

> Furthermore, throw-1.C has:

> /* { dg-skip-if "Stack alignment is too small" { hppa*-*-hpux* } } */

Sorry, these fails are my fault.  I tweaked the skip to just hppa*64*.  
Nominally, 32-bit
hpux has 64 byte stack alignment but maybe alignment in signal frames is 
insufficient.
> so I wonder how it comes you see them run on hpux at all.

> I don't have hpux or hppa-linux fenv.h, so can't check pr52451.c.

Will have to investigate.  I see they predate your patch.
> What kind of error would be on pr83487-*?

Digging into log, I see:

spawn /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/ 
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never 
-DSKIP_DECIMAL_FLOAT -c -o c_compat_y_tst.o 
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat//pr83487-1_y.c
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat//pr83487-1_y.c:27:1: 
warning: alignment (16) for a exceeds maximum alignment for global 
common data.  Using 8
output is:
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat//pr83487-1_y.c:27:1: 
warning: alignment (16) for a exceeds maximum alignment for global 
common data.  Using 8

FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/pr83487-1 c_compat_y_tst.o compile

The typical fix is to add "-fno-common" but I'm not sure where it would 
go in this case.

So, I don't see any regressions from you change.

Thanks,
Dave

-- 
John David Anglin  dave.anglin@bell.net
John David Anglin Jan. 18, 2018, 8:31 p.m. | #10
On 2018-01-18 2:44 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
>> I don't have hpux or hppa-linux fenv.h, so can't check pr52451.c.

> Will have to investigate.  I see they predate your patch.

This is a test issue.  The long double support on hpux is a software 
emulation
and it's not supported the fenv.h routines.

Is this change okay?

Dave

-- 
John David Anglin  dave.anglin@bell.net
2018-01-18  John David Anglin  <danglin@gcc.gnu.org>

	* gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c (main): Skip long double test on
	hppa*-*-hpux*.

Index: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c
===================================================================
--- gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c	(revision 256744)
+++ gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c	(working copy)
@@ -49,7 +49,9 @@
 
   TEST (float, f);
   TEST (double, );
+#if !defined(__hppa__) || !defined(__hpux__)
   TEST (long double, l);
+#endif
   
   return 0;
 }
Jakub Jelinek Jan. 18, 2018, 8:34 p.m. | #11
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:31:38PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2018-01-18 2:44 PM, John David Anglin wrote:

> > > I don't have hpux or hppa-linux fenv.h, so can't check pr52451.c.

> > Will have to investigate.  I see they predate your patch.

> This is a test issue.  The long double support on hpux is a software

> emulation

> and it's not supported the fenv.h routines.


I think this explanation belongs into the testcase as a comment
to explain why you aren't testing it on hppa-hpux.

Ok with that change.

> 2018-01-18  John David Anglin  <danglin@gcc.gnu.org>

> 

> 	* gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c (main): Skip long double test on

> 	hppa*-*-hpux*.

> 

> Index: gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c

> ===================================================================

> --- gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c	(revision 256744)

> +++ gcc.dg/torture/pr52451.c	(working copy)

> @@ -49,7 +49,9 @@

>  

>    TEST (float, f);

>    TEST (double, );

> +#if !defined(__hppa__) || !defined(__hpux__)

>    TEST (long double, l);

> +#endif

>    

>    return 0;

>  }



	Jakub

Patch

--- gcc/function.h.jj	2018-01-03 10:19:53.858533740 +0100
+++ gcc/function.h	2018-01-16 14:31:21.409972177 +0100
@@ -607,7 +607,7 @@  extern bool initial_value_entry (int i,
 extern void instantiate_decl_rtl (rtx x);
 extern int aggregate_value_p (const_tree, const_tree);
 extern bool use_register_for_decl (const_tree);
-extern gimple_seq gimplify_parameters (void);
+extern gimple_seq gimplify_parameters (gimple_seq *);
 extern void locate_and_pad_parm (machine_mode, tree, int, int, int,
 				 tree, struct args_size *,
 				 struct locate_and_pad_arg_data *);
--- gcc/function.c.jj	2018-01-12 11:35:48.901222595 +0100
+++ gcc/function.c	2018-01-16 15:13:22.165665047 +0100
@@ -79,6 +79,8 @@  along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
 #include "tree-ssa.h"
 #include "stringpool.h"
 #include "attribs.h"
+#include "gimple.h"
+#include "options.h"
 
 /* So we can assign to cfun in this file.  */
 #undef cfun
@@ -3993,7 +3995,7 @@  gimplify_parm_type (tree *tp, int *walk_
    statements to add to the beginning of the function.  */
 
 gimple_seq
-gimplify_parameters (void)
+gimplify_parameters (gimple_seq *cleanup)
 {
   struct assign_parm_data_all all;
   tree parm;
@@ -4058,6 +4060,16 @@  gimplify_parameters (void)
 		  else if (TREE_CODE (type) == COMPLEX_TYPE
 			   || TREE_CODE (type) == VECTOR_TYPE)
 		    DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P (local) = 1;
+
+		  if (!is_gimple_reg (local)
+		      && flag_stack_reuse != SR_NONE)
+		    {
+		      tree clobber = build_constructor (type, NULL);
+		      gimple *clobber_stmt;
+		      TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (clobber) = 1;
+		      clobber_stmt = gimple_build_assign (local, clobber);
+		      gimple_seq_add_stmt (cleanup, clobber_stmt);
+		    }
 		}
 	      else
 		{
--- gcc/gimplify.c.jj	2018-01-16 12:21:15.895859416 +0100
+++ gcc/gimplify.c	2018-01-16 14:41:27.643872081 +0100
@@ -12589,7 +12589,7 @@  gbind *
 gimplify_body (tree fndecl, bool do_parms)
 {
   location_t saved_location = input_location;
-  gimple_seq parm_stmts, seq;
+  gimple_seq parm_stmts, parm_cleanup = NULL, seq;
   gimple *outer_stmt;
   gbind *outer_bind;
   struct cgraph_node *cgn;
@@ -12628,7 +12628,7 @@  gimplify_body (tree fndecl, bool do_parm
 
   /* Resolve callee-copies.  This has to be done before processing
      the body so that DECL_VALUE_EXPR gets processed correctly.  */
-  parm_stmts = do_parms ? gimplify_parameters () : NULL;
+  parm_stmts = do_parms ? gimplify_parameters (&parm_cleanup) : NULL;
 
   /* Gimplify the function's body.  */
   seq = NULL;
@@ -12657,6 +12657,13 @@  gimplify_body (tree fndecl, bool do_parm
       tree parm;
 
       gimplify_seq_add_seq (&parm_stmts, gimple_bind_body (outer_bind));
+      if (parm_cleanup)
+	{
+	  gtry *g = gimple_build_try (parm_stmts, parm_cleanup,
+				      GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY);
+	  parm_stmts = NULL;
+	  gimple_seq_add_stmt (&parm_stmts, g);
+	}
       gimple_bind_set_body (outer_bind, parm_stmts);
 
       for (parm = DECL_ARGUMENTS (current_function_decl);