public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug analyzer/104308] no location info provided for [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value] warnings Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:44:10 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-104308-4-S8xAVYGlit@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-104308-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm <dmalcolm@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:875342766d42988fa2f8eb7d34ef562ba69e340a commit r12-7856-g875342766d42988fa2f8eb7d34ef562ba69e340a Author: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> Date: Mon Mar 28 09:43:07 2022 -0400 gimple-fold: fix location of loads for memory ops [PR104308] PR analyzer/104308 reports that when -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value complains about certain memmove operations where the source is uninitialized, the diagnostic uses UNKNOWN_LOCATION: In function 'main': cc1: warning: use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' [CWE-457] [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value] 'main': event 1 | |pr104308.c:5:8: | 5 | char s[5]; /* { dg-message "region created on stack here" } */ | | ^ | | | | | (1) region created on stack here | 'main': event 2 | |cc1: | (2): use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' here | The issue is that gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op converts a memmove to: _3 = MEM <unsigned short> [(char * {ref-all})_1]; MEM <unsigned short> [(char * {ref-all})&s] = _3; but only sets the location of the 2nd stmt, not the 1st. Fixed thusly, giving: pr104308.c: In function 'main': pr104308.c:6:3: warning: use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' [CWE-457] [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value] 6 | memmove(s, s + 1, 2); /* { dg-warning "use of uninitialized value" } */ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'main': events 1-2 | | 5 | char s[5]; /* { dg-message "region created on stack here" } */ | | ^ | | | | | (1) region created on stack here | 6 | memmove(s, s + 1, 2); /* { dg-warning "use of uninitialized value" } */ | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | | | (2) use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' here | One side-effect of this change is a change in part of the output of gcc.dg/uninit-40.c from: uninit-40.c:47:3: warning: â*(long unsigned int *)(&u[1][0][0])â is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized] 47 | __builtin_memcpy (&v[1], &u[1], sizeof (V)); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ uninit-40.c:45:5: note: â*(long unsigned int *)(&u[1][0][0])â was declared here 45 | V u[2], v[2]; | ^ to: uninit-40.c:47:3: warning: âuâ is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized] 47 | __builtin_memcpy (&v[1], &u[1], sizeof (V)); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ uninit-40.c:45:5: note: âuâ declared here 45 | V u[2], v[2]; | ^ What's happening is that pass "early_uninit"(29)'s call to maybe_warn_operand is guarded by this condition: 1051 else if (gimple_assign_load_p (stmt) 1052 && gimple_has_location (stmt)) Before the patch, the stmt: _3 = MEM <unsigned long> [(char * {ref-all})&u + 8B]; has no location, and so early_uninit skips this operand at line 1052 above. Later, pass "uninit"(217) tests the var_decl "u$8", and emits a warning for it. With the patch, the stmt has a location, and so early_uninit emits a warning for "u" and sets a NW_UNINIT warning suppression at that location. Later, pass "uninit"(217)'s test of "u$8" is rejected due to that per-location suppression of uninit warnings, from the earlier warning. gcc/ChangeLog: PR analyzer/104308 * gimple-fold.cc (gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op): When optimizing to loads then stores, set the location of the new load stmt. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR analyzer/104308 * gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c: New test. * gcc.dg/uninit-40.c (foo): Update expression in expected message. Signed-off-by: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-28 13:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-01-31 15:09 [Bug analyzer/104308] New: " kdudka at redhat dot com 2022-01-31 15:56 ` [Bug analyzer/104308] " dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-01-31 15:57 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-01-31 16:40 ` kdudka at redhat dot com 2022-01-31 16:50 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-25 21:52 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-25 21:52 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-28 13:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-03-28 13:52 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-13 7:51 ` kdudka at redhat dot com 2022-04-13 22:05 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-14 13:27 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-25 23:36 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-25 23:39 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-104308-4-S8xAVYGlit@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).