public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/112709] [13/14 Regression] address sanitize and returns_twice causes an ICE Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:02:14 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-112709-4-IPVqHT9jpe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-112709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112709 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Thinking about it, I'd say this should be instrumented differently between asan and ubsan. ubsan, which ought to just check whether the pointer is non-NULL and properly aligned, should instrument it in the caller, so for returns_twice on all the edges but the abnormal from .ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER, if there is just one such edge, emit it on that edge, if there are multiple, split the block, add PHIs and move the .ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER edge. Because the function isn't called for the second time actually, the argument where to store it to will be the same in both cases. For asan this is different, while the address to which the result is stored will be the same, the memory might be poisoned in between, so I think we want to instrument that on the callee side when storing into RESULT_DECL.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-08 17:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-11-25 5:43 [Bug tree-optimization/112709] New: ICE verify_flow_info failed during GIMPLE pass: asan0 iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot com 2023-11-25 19:53 ` [Bug sanitizer/112709] [13/14 Regression] address sanitize and returns_twice causes an ICE pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-27 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-27 13:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-07 21:01 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-08 17:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2024-03-08 17:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-08 17:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-12 10:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-12 13:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-13 8:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-13 8:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-15 14:15 ` [Bug sanitizer/112709] [13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-15 23:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-15 23:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-18 14:42 ` jakub 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-112709-4-IPVqHT9jpe@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).