C++ undefined behaviour sanitiser bug when compiled with optimization

C++ undefined behaviour sanitiser bug when compiled with optimization

[Hannes Mühleisen]

Hello,

we ran into an issue with the following (rather benign) C++ snippet:

#include <atomic>
#include <mutex>

struct Foo {
  void Bar() ;

  std::mutex some_lock;
  std::atomic<uint8_t> some_number;
};

void Foo::Bar() {
        some_lock.lock();
        some_number++;
        some_lock.unlock();
}

When compiling this with a recent GCC on Linux (!) with the following flags

g++ -fsanitize=undefined  -O2 -Werror -c test.cpp -o test.o

The following error is thrown:

In member function ‘std::__atomic_base<_IntTp>::__int_type
std::__atomic_base<_IntTp>::fetch_add(__int_type, std::memory_order)
[with _ITp = unsigned char]’,
    inlined from ‘std::__atomic_base<_IntTp>::__int_type
std::__atomic_base<_IntTp>::operator++(int) [with _ITp = unsigned
char]’ at /usr/include/c++/12/bits/atomic_base.h:369:25,
    inlined from ‘void Foo::Bar()’ at test.cpp:13:13:
/usr/include/c++/12/bits/atomic_base.h:618:34: error: ‘unsigned char
__atomic_fetch_add_1(volatile void*, unsigned char, int)’ writing 1
byte into a region of size 0 overflows the destination
[-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
  618 |       { return __atomic_fetch_add(&_M_i, __i, int(__m)); }
      |                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interestingly, the error disappears with -O0 or -O1 which makes me
think it's a bug related to optimization.

Thanks

Hannes

Re: C++ undefined behaviour sanitiser bug when compiled with optimization

[Jonathan Wakely]

This mailing list is for automated email from our bug tracker, it's
not for reporting bugs directly. Emails sent to this list are likely
to be missed, and definitely won't get entered into the bug tracker.

Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, as described at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/