public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug analyzer/108968] fanalyzer false positive with the uninitalised-ness of the stack pointer
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 21:15:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108968-4-uKWCLDNefI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-108968-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108968

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com> ---
Thank-you for the fix.

I've recompiled master and this uninitialised warning has gone.

Unfortunately, Xen isn't GCC-13 clean (seems like a real bug in Xen), and the
analyser has pointed out various other things which I'm still looking in to.  I
don't see anything which looks like it is a new knock-on effect from this
change.

Our code does fundamentally rely on get_cpu_info() always returning the same
pointer (on a single CPU).  For example, `current` is defined as
`get_cpu_info()->current` and we do expect that to yield the same pointer when
used multiple times.

Even if the analyser was interpreting the generated asm, there's no way it
could prove this without knowing the size/alignment constraints of our stacks.

Would a const annotation on get_cpu_info() be likely to help?  It occurs to me
that this is true in all cases that the compiler could legitimately reason
about.  (It would only cease being true if we fell off our stack, at which
point UB is the very least of our worries.)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-03-02 21:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-28 12:41 [Bug c/108968] New: " andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-02-28 13:12 ` [Bug c/108968] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2023-02-28 13:44 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-02-28 13:59 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2023-02-28 15:41 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-02-28 18:56 ` [Bug analyzer/108968] " dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-28 19:04 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-03-02 19:02 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 19:25 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 21:15 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com [this message]
2023-03-02 21:20 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-03-02 21:25 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 21:29 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 21:34 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-03-02 21:35 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-03-02 21:41 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2023-03-02 21:46 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 21:48 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 21:52 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-29 18:19 ` cvs-commit 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-108968-4-uKWCLDNefI@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: link
Be 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).