From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 272E1385E448; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 23:16:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 272E1385E448
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/104017] unexpeted -Warray-bounds popping a
 fixed number of std::deque elements
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 23:16:29 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104017-4-PLGGSufUEV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104017-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104017-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 23:16:29 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104017

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The warning triggers for the clobber statement in bb 43 below.  _236 is ass=
umed
to point to the beginning of the block of 512 bytes allocated by new, so
subtracting a positive integer from it or adding one in excess of 512 is
invalid, as is dereferencing the result:

  <bb 2> [local count: 118111600]:
  ...
  _229 =3D operator new (512);                               >>> _229
  ...
  <bb 42> [local count: 50546886]:
  _176 =3D p.D.20902._M_impl.D.20257._M_finish._M_first;
  if (_176 !=3D _229)
    goto <bb 43>; [82.57%]
  else
    goto <bb 44>; [17.43%]

  <bb 43> [local count: 41736564]:
  _236 =3D ASSERT_EXPR <_229, _229 !=3D _176>;                 <<< _229
  _177 =3D _236 + 18446744073709551608;
  p.D.20951._M_impl.D.20306._M_finish._M_cur =3D _177;
  MEM[(const struct Node * *)_236 + -8B] =3D{v} {CLOBBER};   <<< -Warray-bo=
unds
  goto <bb 45>; [100.00%]

I view the warning as helpful here (and so not a false positive even) becau=
se
the test function assumes the loop inserts at least three elements into the
container.  If it doesn't, one of the pop() calls will crash.

A more compelling test case would guard each if the pop() calls to prevent =
the
crash, like below:

#include <deque>

struct Node { Node const * parent =3D nullptr; };

void func(Node const * n)
{
    std::deque<Node const *> p;

    Node const * e =3D n;

    while (e !=3D nullptr) {
        p.push_front(e);
        e =3D e->parent;
    }

    if (p.size ())
      p.pop_front();
    if (p.size ())
      p.pop_front();
    if (p.size ())
      p.pop_back();
}


This test case also triggers a warning, for the same reason: GCC can't
determine the relationship between a deque's internal node pointers and the
result of std::deque::size() (which is a function of the node pointers).=