public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/67204] documentation for sanitizer missing/incomplete Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:07:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-67204-4-vcmAZGwhYt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-67204-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67204 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5) > (In reply to smagnet from comment #3) > > Moreover, the undefined behavior sanitizer runtime options (UBSAN_OPTIONS, > > as described here > > <https://www.chromium.org/developers/testing/undefinedbehaviorsanitizer>) > > aren't documented at all in the manual. > > UBSAN_OPTIONS isn't currently supported by GCC. These kind of divergences give reason to think that the sanitizers should be further documented in the GCC manual. Another example is the range of supported platforms: GCC's sanitizer could in principle support different ones (more? fewer?) than Clang's. I'm not saying that anyone should stop working on what they are doing to implement this, but if a volunteer appears (Smagnet?) and wants to work on this, why not allow them? Perhaps they can create better documentation than the official one. >From gcc-bugs-return-494973-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 17 10:24:51 2015 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-494973-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 118508 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2015 10:24:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org> List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/> List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org> Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 116872 invoked by uid 48); 17 Aug 2015 10:24:46 -0000 From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/67244] [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1801 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:24:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: trippels 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: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on cf_known_to_work cf_gcchost short_desc everconfirmed cf_known_to_fail bug_severity Message-ID: <bug-67244-4-u3TeluihVE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-67244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-67244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01115.txt.bz2 Content-length: 4278 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idg244 Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2015-08-17 Known to work| |4.9.3 Host|OS X 10.10.2 | Summary|internal compiler error: in |[5/6 Regression] internal |gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, |compiler error: in |at gimplify.c:1801 |gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, | |at gimplify.c:1801 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail| |5.1.1, 6.0 Severity|major |normal --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Creduce came up with: markus@x4 tmp % cat Uni.ii class A { public: int operator*(); }; template <typename T, typename Predicate> void searchGen(int, int, T, Predicate p4) { p4(0); } template <typename...> struct B; template <typename MetaFunction, typename Type, typename... Types> struct B<MetaFunction, Type, Types...> { static void exec() { MetaFunction::template exec<Type>; } }; template <typename MetaFunction, typename... Types> void forEachType() { B<MetaFunction, Types...>::exec; } namespace { struct C { template <typename T> void exec() { A __trans_tmp_1; const auto target = *__trans_tmp_1; searchGen(0, 0, 0, [=](T) { [=] { target; }; }); } }; } void ____C_A_T_C_H____T_E_S_T____75() { forEachType<C, int>; } markus@x4 tmp % /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.9.3/g++ -std=c++11 -c Uni.ii markus@x4 tmp % g++ -c Uni.ii Uni.ii: In lambda function: Uni.ii:22:33: internal compiler error: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1776 searchGen(0, 0, 0, [=](T) { [=] { target; }; }); ^ 0xa653e1 gimplify_var_or_parm_decl ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:1776 0xa6c827 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**, gimple_statement_base**, bool (*)(tree_node*), int) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:8500 0xa794f6 gimplify_modify_expr ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:4625 0xa6cd94 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**, gimple_statement_base**, bool (*)(tree_node*), int) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:8069 0xa70ec6 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:5525 0xa710ac gimplify_and_add(tree_node*, gimple_statement_base**) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:398 0xa710ac gimplify_init_ctor_eval ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:3637 0xa78156 gimplify_init_constructor ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:3997 0xa78f97 gimplify_modify_expr_rhs ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:4254 0xa7936d gimplify_modify_expr ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:4584 0xa6cd94 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**, gimple_statement_base**, bool (*)(tree_node*), int) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:8069 0xa6cebd gimplify_target_expr ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:5456 0xa6cebd gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**, gimple_statement_base**, bool (*)(tree_node*), int) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:8436 0xa70ec6 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:5525 0xa6d1b3 gimplify_cleanup_point_expr ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:5301 0xa6d1b3 gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**, gimple_statement_base**, bool (*)(tree_node*), int) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:8432 0xa70ec6 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:5525 0xa727bd gimplify_bind_expr ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:1111 0xa6d0ec gimplify_expr(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**, gimple_statement_base**, bool (*)(tree_node*), int) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:8266 0xa70ec6 gimplify_stmt(tree_node**, gimple_statement_base**) ../../gcc/gcc/gimplify.c:5525 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-17 10:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-08-13 10:21 [Bug sanitizer/67204] New: " smagnet at yopmail dot com 2015-08-13 10:26 ` [Bug sanitizer/67204] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-08-13 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-08-13 10:46 ` smagnet at yopmail dot com 2015-08-13 11:01 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-08-13 11:16 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-08-17 9:04 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com 2015-08-17 10:07 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2015-08-17 12:15 ` dvyukov at google dot com 2015-08-17 12:51 ` mpolacek 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-67204-4-vcmAZGwhYt@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).