I've submitted 207175 for a clang 3.8.0 va_list handling problem for powerpc

Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net
Mon Feb 15 08:52:18 UTC 2016


I'm top posting as the following can stand on its own fairly well.

On Sun Feb 14 23:46:14 UTC 2016 Nathan Whitehorn wrote:

> On 02/14/16 14:34, Mark Millard wrote:
> > clang's code base is not familiar material for me nor do I have solid 
> > reference material for the FreeBSD TARGET_ARCH=powerpc ABI rules so 
> > the below has my guess work involved. The following code appears to 
> > have hard wired a global, unvarying constant (8) into the test for 
> > picking UsingRegs vs. UsingOverflow.
> 
> For reference, we use the standard ELF ABI 
> (https://uclibc.org/docs/psABI-ppc.pdf).
> -Nathan

Reviewing the Parameter Passing material in that document shows that the problem is in the original specification.

And there is a more modern specification that has a fix in its wording. (Which shows that I'm not likely to be wrong.) I'll reference and quote it later.

First I'll explain the problem that is in psABI-ppc.pdf (the old SunSoft 1995 document).

First a numbering point: psABI-ppc.pdf uses "gr" matching the numeral in r3, r4, . . . , r10, starting at r3 (i.e, 3). And gr indicates the next register to be used, not the last one already used.

The document splits the algorithm for placement of parameters into 3 stages with the following structure, intended as they have it in the document but various less interesting details for my "8byte then 4byte" example omitted:

> INITIALIZING:
>      Set fr=1, gr=3, and starg to the address of
>      parameter word 1.
> SCAN:
>      If there are no more arguments, terminate.
>      Otherwise, select one of the following
>      depending on the type of the next argument:
> 
>      DOUBLE_OR_FLOAT
>         If fr>8 ( . . .), go to OTHER. Otherwise,
>         . . .
> 
>      SIMPLE_ARG
>         If gr>10, go to OTHER. Otherwise, load the
>         argument value into general register gr,
>         set gr to gr+1, can goto SCAN. . . .
> 
>      LONG_LONG
>         If gr>9, go to OTHER. Otherwise, . . .
> 
> OTHER:
>        Arguments not otherwise handled above are
>        passed in the parameter words of the
>        caller’s stack frame. . . . Set starg to
>        starg+size, then go to SCAN.

Note that gr is not incremented by LONG_LONG or by the later OTHER usage when gr>9. (That would be my example's 8 byte integer that is later followed by a 4 byte one.)

That OTHER's "go to SCAN" would then lead to the following 4 byte integer in my example to be put in r10 and gr then being set to 11 instead of it being stored in a parameter word on the stack.

The nasty thing about this for va_list/va_arg use is that the stored information does not indicate which was before vs. after in the argument order: the 4 byte r10 content or the 8 byte "OTHER" content: the two orders produce identical results.

This can not be correct.

The Power-Arch-32-bit-ABI-supp-1.0-Unified.pdf is more modern and explicitly deals with VR and other modern things. (Its terminology matching LONG_LONG above is DUAL_GP.) But for what I'm dealing with here it has the following extra wording at the very end of its OTHER section:

> If gr>9 and the type is DUAL_GP ,or . . ., or . . ., then set gr = 11 (to prevent subsequent SINGLE_GPs from being placed in registers after DUAL_GP, QUAD_GP, or EIGHT_GP arguments that would no longer fit in the registers).



I've left the prior information below for reference.

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net



On 2016-Feb-14, at 2:34 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2016-Feb-14, at 11:29 AM, Roman Divacky <rdivacky at vlakno.cz> wrote:
>> 
>> Fwiw, the code to handle the vaarg is in 
>> tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:PPC32_SVR4_ABIInfo::EmitVAArg()
>> 
>> You can take a look to see whats wrong.
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 07:03:29PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote:
>>> I've isolated another clang 3.8.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc SEGV problem that shows up for using clang 3.8.0 to buildworld/installworld for powerpc.
>>> 
>>>> ls -l -n /
>>> 
>>> gets a SEGV. As listed in https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207175 ( and  https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26605 ) the following simplified program also gets the SEGV on powerpc:
>>> 
>>>> #include <stdarg.h> // for va_list, va_start, va_arg, va_end
>>>> #include <stdint.h> // for intmax_t
>>>> 
>>>> intmax_t
>>>> va_test (char *s, ...)
>>>> {
>>>>   va_list vap;
>>>> 
>>>>   va_start(vap, s);
>>>> 
>>>>   char*        t0 = va_arg(vap, char*);
>>>>   unsigned int o0 = va_arg(vap, unsigned int);
>>>>   int          c0 = va_arg(vap, int);
>>>>   unsigned int u0 = va_arg(vap, unsigned int);
>>>>   int          c1 = va_arg(vap, int);
>>>>   char *       t1 = va_arg(vap, char*);
>>>> 
>>>>   intmax_t     j0 = va_arg(vap, intmax_t); // This spans into overflow_arg_area.
>>>> 
>>>>   int          c2 = va_arg(vap, int);      // A copy was put in the 
>>>>                                            // overflow_arg_area because of the
>>>>                                            // above.
>>>>                                            // But this tries to extract from the
>>>>                                            // last 4 bytes of the reg_save_area.
>>>>                                            // It does not increment the
>>>>                                            // overflow_arg_area position pointer
>>>>                                            // past the copy that is there.
>>>> 
>>>>   char *       t2 = va_arg(vap, char*);    // The lack of increment before makes
>>>>                                            // this extraction off by 4 bytes.
>>>> 
>>>>   char         t2fc = *t2;  // <<< This gets SEGV. t2 actually got what should be
>>>>                             //     the c2 value.
>>>> 
>>>>   intmax_t     j1 = va_arg(vap, intmax_t);
>>>> 
>>>>   va_end(vap);
>>>> 
>>>>   return (intmax_t) ((s-t2)+(t0-t1)+o0+u0+j0+j1+c0+c1+c2+t2fc);
>>>>   // Avoid any optimize-away for lack of use.
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> int main(void)
>>>> {
>>>>   char         s[1025] = "test string for this";
>>>> 
>>>>   char*        t0 = s + 5;
>>>>   unsigned int o0 = 3;
>>>>   int          c0 = 1;
>>>>   unsigned int u0 = 1;
>>>>   int          c1 = 3;
>>>>   char *       t1 = s + 12;
>>>>   intmax_t     j0 = 314159265358979323;
>>>>   int          c2 = 4;
>>>>   char *       t2 = s + 16;
>>>>   intmax_t     j1 = ~314159265358979323;
>>>> 
>>>>   intmax_t      result = va_test(s,t0,o0,c0,u0,c1,t1,j0,c1,t2,j1);
>>>> 
>>>>   return (int) (result - (intmax_t) ((s-t2)+(t0-t1)+o0+u0+j0+j1+c0+c1+c2+*t2));
>>>>   // Avoid any optimize-away for lack of use.
>>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ===
>>> Mark Millard
>>> markmi at dsl-only.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-toolchain at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
> clang's code base is not familiar material for me nor do I have solid reference material for the FreeBSD TARGET_ARCH=powerpc ABI rules so the below has my guess work involved.
> 
> The following code appears to have hard wired a global, unvarying constant (8) into the test for picking UsingRegs vs. UsingOverflow.
> 
> 
>>  llvm::Value *NumRegs = Builder.CreateLoad(NumRegsAddr, "numUsedRegs");
> . . .
>>  llvm::Value *CC =
>>      Builder.CreateICmpULT(NumRegs, Builder.getInt8(8), "cond");
>> 
>>  llvm::BasicBlock *UsingRegs = CGF.createBasicBlock("using_regs");
>>  llvm::BasicBlock *UsingOverflow = CGF.createBasicBlock("using_overflow");
>>  llvm::BasicBlock *Cont = CGF.createBasicBlock("cont");
>> 
>>  Builder.CreateCondBr(CC, UsingRegs, UsingOverflow);
> . . .
>>  // Case 1: consume registers.
>>  Address RegAddr = Address::invalid();
>>  {
> . . .
>>    // Increase the used-register count.
>>    NumRegs =
>>      Builder.CreateAdd(NumRegs,
>>                        Builder.getInt8((isI64 || (isF64 && IsSoftFloatABI)) ? 2 : 1));
>>    Builder.CreateStore(NumRegs, NumRegsAddr);. . .
> . . .
>>  }
>> 
>>  // Case 2: consume space in the overflow area.
>>  Address MemAddr = Address::invalid();
>>  {
> . . . (no adjustments to NumRegs) . . .
> 
> If so the means of counting NumRegs (a.k.a. gpr) then needs to take into account an allocated but unused last UsingRegs "slot" sometimes. Imagine. . .
> 
> r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9 in use already so r10 is the last possible "UsingRegs" context.
> (0  1   2   3   4   5   6, leaving r10 as position 7, the last < 8 value)
> 
> Then the next two arguments are a 8 byte integer then a a 4 byte integer (in that order). That results in what should be:
> 
> r10 "UsingRegs" slot reserved and un-accessed
> In other words: counted as allocated so that the rest goes in in the overflow area
> (so no position 7 usage)
> 
> then
> 
> overflow with the 8 byte integer then the 4 byte integer.
> 
> 
> And, in fact, the memory content reflects this in the overflow area.
> 
> 
> But the va_arg access code does not count r10's slot as allocated in "Using Regs" after the 8 byte integer. So later it tries to use r10's slot for the 4 byte integer that is actually in the UsingOverflow area.
> 
> One fix of sorts is to have "Case 2: consume space in the overflow area." set NumRegs (a.k.a. gpr) to the bound from the Builder.CreateICmpULT (8 in this context). Then the first (or any/every) use of the UsingOverflow area forces no more use of the UsingRegs area (for the involved va_list).
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> Mark Millard
> markmi at dsl-only.net



More information about the freebsd-ppc mailing list