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.


  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: link
Be 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).