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.)
next prev 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: 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).