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 2A9A53858C2B; Tue,  9 May 2023 08:49:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2A9A53858C2B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683622191;
	bh=b6C4FmZwlLls0mmid+VdN5DmQZgb09DHvCTa6nJJKWQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=f+eqwoEuMUoCFzFPAkX06aiggVazcgpt5hULHAb273V/8+eiPs8Eqc/+JE/j0JIWg
	 iem+CvlK7pL+dS8H1FrCA+MG20pRv9rQnckT4JCktPTjam9tuJ25UQnYO56kIUatUL
	 h1QdRYG/ggKIJ2Gqrhh/GakuqgS2gtiovLOInbYY=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/109770] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong(?)
 devirtualization
Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 08:49:50 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109770-4-JYMPpMiVFQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109770-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109770-4@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=3D109770

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> > #include <new>
> >=20
> > struct Base
> > {
> >   virtual ~Base() {}
> > };
> > struct A : Base
> > {
> >   virtual ~A() {}
> > };
> > struct B : Base
> > {
> >   [[gnu::noinline]] B() { new (this) A; }
> >   virtual ~B() { __builtin_abort (); }
> > };
> > int main()
> > {
> >   Base *p =3D new B;
> >   delete p;
> > }
> >=20
> > aborts when compiled with -O2 (with devirtualization enabled).  Neither
> > GCC nor clang diagnose the placement new in B::B() (but it looks fishy).
>=20
> I believe you need to std::launder the p pointer before calling delete:
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder

Ah, interesting.  I was looking for an answer whether

 new T

may produce anything other than an object with dynamic type T or if there
are any constraints on the object constructed.  In particular C++20 11.10.4
refered to by 6.7.3 doesn't mention whether re-using the storage is
permitted for an object under construction.  It says usage is limited
and doesn't explicitely allow re-use so that might mean re-use is not allow=
ed.

Note std::launder is C++17 only, the original reporter was using C++98 / C+=
+14

Reading C++20, 6.7.3/9, at least suggests that the placement new (this) A
in the CTOR invokes undefined behavior because the lifetime of B hasn't
ended (but 6.7.3/1.5 makes this ambiguous - we're re-using the storage here,
and also we're not talking about an object with automatic storage duration)=
.=