Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
DescriptionJaroslav Škarvada
2012-07-19 14:15:20 UTC
Description of problem:
When backporting fix from grep I encountered code that miscompiles on s390 with -O2.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
gcc-4.4.6-4.el6.s390
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to build grep-2.13-2.fc18.src.rpm (currently the latest Fedora version) for RHEL-6.4 on s390.
Actual results:
Build fails
Expected results:
Build pass
Additional info:
It compiles correctly on:
- any arch other than s390 (e.g 390x compiles OK)
- on s390 with -O0 or -O1
- on s390 with -O2 if newer gcc is used (gcc from Fedora 16 and up seems to work correctly).
Stripped down reproducer will be attached.
Comment 2Jaroslav Škarvada
2012-07-19 14:44:08 UTC
Created attachment 599173[details]
Stripped down reproducer
Reproducer:
On s390, gcc-4.4.6-4.el6.s390
$ gcc -O2 -o test test.c
$ ./test
1
In all other cases (e.g. -O1 or -O2 on s390x, x86, ...):
$ gcc -O2 -o test test.c
$ ./test
2
Warning reported to grep upstream, ticket:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?36883
But I think the warning is not the core of this problem.
Assembly for the first case:
0040052c <main>:
40052c: 90 ef f0 38 stm %r14,%r15,56(%r15)
400530: c0 20 00 00 00 88 larl %r2,400640 <__dso_handle+0x10>
400536: a7 fa ff 98 ahi %r15,-104
40053a: a7 38 00 01 lhi %r3,1
40053e: a7 18 00 02 lhi %r1,2
400542: 50 10 f0 64 st %r1,100(%r15)
400546: c0 e5 ff ff ff 07 brasl %r14,400354 <printf@plt>
40054c: 98 ef f0 a0 lm %r14,%r15,160(%r15)
400550: 07 fe br %r14
400552: 07 07 nopr %r7
I guess the opcode on 40053a is wrong.
Assembly for s390x:
8000056c: eb ef f0 70 00 24 stmg %r14,%r15,112(%r15)
80000572: a7 39 00 02 lghi %r3,2
80000576: e3 f0 ff 58 ff 71 lay %r15,-168(%r15)
8000057c: c0 20 00 00 00 9a larl %r2,800006b0 <__dso_handle+0x10>
80000582: e3 30 f0 a0 00 24 stg %r3,160(%r15)
80000588: c0 e5 ff ff ff 46 brasl %r14,80000414 <printf@plt>
8000058e: eb ef f1 18 00 04 lmg %r14,%r15,280(%r15)
80000594: 07 fe br %r14
80000596: 07 07 nopr %r7
That testcase is not valid C. On s390 32-bit ptrdiff_t is int while size_t is unsigned long int, so the above violates ISO C99 6.5 (7). While those two types have on s390 32-bit the same size, size_t isn't signed/unsigned versions corresponding to the effective type of ptrdiff_t. On most of the other architectures size_t/ptrdiff_t types are actually either unsigned int/int or
unsigned long/long or unsigned long long/long long, so it is valid C then.
You can work around it by using -fno-strict-aliasing, or much better just fix the code not to violate C/C++ aliasing requirements.
Comment 4Jaroslav Škarvada
2012-07-20 12:15:31 UTC
Sorry for false positive. I was checking both types in stddef.h and through sizeof() and didn't notice that they are built-ins and differ.