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 CD79B3858D39; Wed,  8 Feb 2023 04:28:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CD79B3858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675830508;
	bh=FUqoapkz5Wl1OMbb5dDSIawrq+0D63jUxJPrSTOK62I=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
	b=OF0/Kn4JCXwTM2DjZjQMySfNYP8JrYtRZMil0PyWBZDbtbl05LcJYiq/5HKqPFM4e
	 aJVMfawuA+JGR5+PeYhXt9Qm+qWQkC/VbhPOryjmObjLEwnfUs/8ImdQAi+OOu4vzN
	 +MBWTbYTMRKWiumQUAJhkvjyEy2mwXa8XRB77eg0=
From: "nightstrike at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug analyzer/108708] New: __analyzer_dump_named_constant fails with
 derived values
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 04:28:27 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: nightstrike at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-108708-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108708

            Bug ID: 108708
           Summary: __analyzer_dump_named_constant fails with derived
                    values
           Product: gcc
           Version: 13.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: analyzer
          Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: nightstrike at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

The analyzer test fd-access-mode-target-headers.c fails on mingw-w64 due to=
 the
following:

FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
55)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
56)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
57)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c (test for excess erro=
rs)
Excess errors:
gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c:55:3:
warning: named constant 'O_ACCMODE' has unknown value
gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c:56:3:
warning: named constant 'O_RDONLY' has unknown value
gcc-git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c:57:3:
warning: named constant 'O_WRONLY' has unknown value


This fails, because on mingw-w64, we define these macros indirectly:

#define _O_RDONLY 0x0000
#define _O_WRONLY 0x0001
#define _O_RDWR 0x0002
#define _O_ACCMODE (_O_RDONLY|_O_WRONLY|_O_RDWR)
...
#define O_RDONLY _O_RDONLY
#define O_WRONLY _O_WRONLY
#define O_ACCMODE _O_ACCMODE


If I modify the test to do "#undef O_ACCMODE; #define O_ACCMODE 42", it wor=
ks
as expected (and the other tests in the testsuite that test this also pass).

I didn't flag this as a testsuite issue, though, because it seems that the
issue is within the ability of __analyzer_dump_named_constant() to handle a
macro value that references another macro or is some other valid expression=
.  I
also don't think it's specific to Windows.

Perhaps related is that these tests also fail:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
19)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
27)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
32)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode-target-headers.c  (test for warnings, =
line
39)

I assume this is related to the analyzer not being able to deduce the
permissions passed to open().=