[PATCH, V2] gas: gcfg: fix handling of non-local direct jmps in gcfg
Indu Bhagat
indu.bhagat@oracle.com
Thu Mar 28 16:26:05 GMT 2024
On 3/28/24 03:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.03.2024 08:59, Indu Bhagat wrote:
>> [Changes in V2]
>> - Add function level comments for ginsn_direct_local_jump_p.
>> - Add a jmp to locally defined label in the testcase to make it more
>> complete. Also, add a jmp to label defined in another function.
>> The testcase now generates an additional warning (as expected):
>> "Warning: GINSN: found unreachable code in func 'bar'"
>
> For this - can't you simply omit the unreachable pair of insns?
>
We do omit those instructions from GCFG and SCFI. GAS does, however,
warn for now. Do you mean skip this warning too?
> Other than that, looks plausible, so feel free to put in.
>
>> - Use formatting style consistent with other testcases.
>> [End of changes in V2]
>
> As a minor remark, this entire section would better go ...
>
Yes, I usually get rid of this before committing. But I agree, its
better put below after the separator.
>> The ginsn infrastructure in GAS includes the ability to create a GCFG
>> (ginsn CFG). A GCFG is currently used for SCFI passes.
>>
>> This patch fixes the following invalid assumptions / code blocks:
>> - The function ginsn_direct_local_jump_p () was erroneously _not_
>> checking whether the symbol is locally defined (i.e., within the
>> scope of the code block for which GCFG is desired). Fix the code
>> to do so.
>> - Similarly, the GCFG creation code, in gcfg_build () itself had an
>> assumption that a GINSN_TYPE_JUMP to a non-local symbol will not be
>> seen. The latter can indeed be seen, and in fact, needs to be treated
>> the same way as an exit from the function in terms of control-flow.
>>
>> gas/
>> * ginsn.c (ginsn_direct_local_jump_p): Check if the symbol
>> is local to the code block or function being assembled.
>> (add_bb_at_ginsn): Remove buggy assumption.
>> (frch_ginsn_data_append): Direct jmps do not disqualify a stream
>> of ginsns from GCFG creation.
>>
>> gas/testsuite/
>> * gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.d: New test.
>> * gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.l: New test.
>> * gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.s: New test.
>> * gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-x86-64.exp: Add new test.
>>
>> gas: gcfg: address review comments for local jump issue
>>
>> ChangeLog:
>> * gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.d
>> * gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.l
>> * gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.s
>> ---
>> gas/ginsn.c | 47 +++++++++++--------
>> gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.d | 32 +++++++++++++
>> gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.l | 3 ++
>> gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.s | 43 +++++++++++++++++
>> gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-x86-64.exp | 2 +
>> 5 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.d
>> create mode 100644 gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.l
>> create mode 100644 gas/testsuite/gas/scfi/x86_64/scfi-cfg-3.s
>
> ... below here, perhaps with another --- separator. This way it's clear
> that the revlog isn't going to be part of the commit message.
>
> Jan
More information about the Binutils
mailing list