public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "zhan3299 at purdue dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/99156] New: __builtin_expect affects the interpretation of its first operand
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 04:29:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-99156-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99156

            Bug ID: 99156
           Summary: __builtin_expect affects the interpretation of its
                    first operand
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: zhan3299 at purdue dot edu
  Target Milestone: ---

I hope it does not bother. I try to refer to a bug in llvm which may also
affect gcc.  

Following are copied-and-pasted from the discussion about a similar bug in
clang (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49239#c3). 

Specifically, 

> int maybe_vla(int n) {
>    goto label;
>    int arr[({0;})];
> label:
>    return sizeof(arr);
> }
> 
> ... is rejected by both Clang and GCC because the statement-expression is not an ICE, but
> 
> int maybe_vla(int n) {
>     goto label;
>     int arr[__builtin_expect(({0;}), 0)];
> label:
>     return sizeof(arr);
> }
> 
> ... is accepted. This seems like a bug in both compilers to me: __builtin_expect isn't supposed to affect the interpretation of its first operand, and presumably shouldn't be weakening the strict ICE checks.


case 1: https://godbolt.org/z/zWGEfx
case 2: https://godbolt.org/z/bejfcc

             reply	other threads:[~2021-02-19  4:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-19  4:29 zhan3299 at purdue dot edu [this message]
2021-02-19 15:15 ` [Bug c/99156] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 21:32 ` zhan3299 at purdue dot edu
2021-07-23 18:18 ` [Bug c/99156] __builtin_expect is folded too soon allowing an non-integer-constant-expr to become an integer-const-expr pinskia 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-99156-4@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).