miscompilation of unsigned comparison on aarch64
Bug #1267761 reported by
Matthias Klose
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Linaro GCC |
Fix Released
|
Undecided
|
Michael Collison | ||
gcc |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
|||
gcc-4.8 (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
High
|
Unassigned | ||
Trusty |
Fix Released
|
High
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Changed in gcc-4.8 (Ubuntu Trusty): | |
importance: | Undecided → High |
milestone: | none → ubuntu-14.01 |
status: | New → Confirmed |
Changed in gcc: | |
importance: | Unknown → Medium |
status: | Unknown → Confirmed |
Changed in gcc: | |
status: | Confirmed → Fix Released |
Changed in gcc-linaro: | |
assignee: | nobody → Michael Collison (michael-collison) |
Changed in gcc-linaro: | |
status: | New → Fix Released |
To post a comment you must log in.
Hi,
This slightly strangely written program (it's distilled down from frame_offset_ overflow in the gcc source itself) should print "bigger" if the first argument is bigger than 10 (or negative, but let's ignore that please):
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int a[2] = { 10, 20 };
int
is_bigger (long offset, int index)
{
unsigned long size = -offset;
if (size > a[index]) "bigger\ n");
{
printf(
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int
main (int argc, char** argv)
{
long v;
v = atol(argv[1]);
is_bigger(-v, 0);
return 0;
}
When compiled at -O1 or above (and with inlining disabled at -O2 and above), though, it bungles the 0 case:
(t-doko) mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ gcc-4.9 -O3 test.c -o test -fno-inline -Wall mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ ./test 1 mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ ./test 11 mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ ./test 0 mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ gcc-4.9 -O0 test.c -o test -Wall mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ ./test 1 mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ ./test 11 mwhudson@ arm64:~ $ ./test 0 mwhudson@ arm64:~ $
(t-doko)
(t-doko)
bigger
(t-doko)
bigger
(t-doko)
(t-doko)
(t-doko)
bigger
(t-doko)
(t-doko)
What's going on? Here's the disassembly of is_bigger (at O3):
0000000000400608 <is_bigger>: OFFSET_ TABLE_+ 0x28>
400608: b0000082 adrp x2, 411000 <_GLOBAL_
40060c: 91010042 add x2, x2, #0x40
400610: a9bf7bfd stp x29, x30, [sp,#-16]!
400614: 52800003 mov w3, #0x0 // #0
400618: 910003fd mov x29, sp
40061c: b8a1d841 ldrsw x1, [x2,w1,sxtw #2]
400620: ab00003f cmn x1, x0
400624: 540000a2 b.cs 400638 <is_bigger+0x30>
400628: 90000000 adrp x0, 400000 <_init-0x3f8>
40062c: 911b6000 add x0, x0, #0x6d8
400630: 97ffff90 bl 400470 <puts@plt>
400634: 52800023 mov w3, #0x1 // #1
400638: 2a0303e0 mov w0, w3
40063c: a8c17bfd ldp x29, x30, [sp],#16
400640: d65f03c0 ret
Basically it seems that the condition "-offset > val" is being compiled as "val + offset does not overflow", which is not valid for offset == 0.