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 06B7C3858D35; Mon, 22 May 2023 18:04:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 06B7C3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684778682;
	bh=HsG36esdyPZXAgIWwDmd7X5wg92UljjVQs9vjnXU7Vg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rnO39CHgz/ZAs2yqJri4LMgqjYXH740c4GNFrHkC1NjkgAvV4OAueY1hufF9PCOUP
	 rVh5KH5Kl81JGg4pxoC63peRhYcI+itj6GNIjIHbtF5hn2fFvP0N7ayI6O4u94CY76
	 PQf5R4RGfJKCZQ7UqdSnYKx2pA9gkPVBxRZCRWSY=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/109886] UBSAN error: shift exponent 64 is too large for
 64-bit type when compiling gcc.c-torture/compile/pr96796.c
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 18:04:41 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109886-4-k80ESnnurD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109886-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109886-4@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=3D109886

--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Breakpoint 6, range_cast (r=3D..., type=3D<record_type 0x7ffff73eda80 S0>=
) at
> /home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/range-op.cc:4853
> 4853      Value_Range tmp (r);
>=20
>=20
> Confirmed.
> The code looks like:
> ```
> int g_5, func_1_l_32, func_50___trans_tmp_31;
> ...
> int func_1() { func_50(g_3_4, g_5, func_1_l_32, 8, 3); }
> ...
> struct S0 *func_50(int p_51, struct S0 p_52, struct S1 p_53, int p_54,
>                    int p_55) {
> ...
> }
> ```
>=20
> Code in gcc:
>           if (TREE_CODE (arg) =3D=3D SSA_NAME
>               && param_type
>               /* Limit the ranger query to integral types as the rest
>                  of this file uses value_range's, which only hold
>                  integers and pointers.  */
>               && irange::supports_p (TREE_TYPE (arg))
>               && get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (vr, arg)
>               && !vr.undefined_p ())
>             {
>               value_range resvr =3D vr;
>               range_cast (resvr, param_type);
>               if (!resvr.undefined_p () && !resvr.varying_p ())
>                 ipa_set_jfunc_vr (jfunc, &resvr);
>               else
>                 gcc_assert (!jfunc->m_vr);
>             }
>           else
>             gcc_assert (!jfunc->m_vr);
>=20
>=20
> Maybe there should be an extra check for `irange::supports_p (param_type)`
> too to catch the case where param_type type is not supported at all.

If irange::supports_p (TREE_TYPE (arg)) is true, we're talking about an
integer/pointer, but if range_cast is being called on a parm_type of
RECORD_TYPE, someone's trying to cast a structure to an integer.  Is that t=
he
intent here, because that will not work with ranges??=