[gcc(refs/users/aoliva/heads/testme)] -Wdangling-pointer: don't mark SSA lhs sets as stores

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e5b26d52826e7578eb841375066d71c429e2996

commit 1e5b26d52826e7578eb841375066d71c429e2996
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Date:   Fri Mar 3 01:47:07 2023 -0300

    -Wdangling-pointer: don't mark SSA lhs sets as stores
    
    check_dangling_stores has some weirdnesses that causes its behavior to
    change when the target ABI requires C++ ctors to return this: while
    scanning stmts backwards in e.g. the AS ctor on a target that returns
    this in ctors, the scan first encounters a copy of this to the SSA
    name used to hold the return value.  m_ptr_query.get_ref resolves lhs
    (the return SSA name) to the rhs (the default SSA name for this), does
    not skip it because auto_var_p is false for SSA_NAMEs, and proceeds to
    add it to stores, which seems to prevent later attempts to add stores
    into *this from succeeding, which disables warnings that should have
    triggered.
    
    This is also the case when the backwards search finds unrelated stores
    to other fields of *this before it reaches stores that IMHO should be
    warned about.  The store found first disables checking of other
    stores, as if the store appearing later in the code would necessarily
    overwrite the store that should be warned about.  I've added an
    xfailed variant of the existing test (struct An) that triggers this
    problem, but I'm not sure how to go about fixing it.
    
    Meanwhile, this patch prevents assignments with SSA_NAMEs in the lhs
    from being regarded as stores, which is enough to remove the
    undesirable side effect on -Wdangling-pointer of ABI-mandated ctors'
    returning this.  Another variant of the existing test (struct Al) that
    demonstrates the problem regardless of this aspect of the ABI, and
    that gets the desired warning with the proposed patch, but not
    without.
    
    Curiously, this fix exposes yet another problem in
    Wdangling-pointer-5.c: it is the return stmt of the unrelated pointer
    p, not the store into possibly-overlapping *vpp2, that caused the
    warning to not be issued for the store in *vpp1.  I'm not sure whether
    we should or should not warn in that case, but this patch adjusts the
    test to reflect the behavior change.
    
    
    for  gcc/ChangeLog
    
            * gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
            (pass_waccess::check_dangling_stores): Skip non-stores.
    
    for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    
            * g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C (warn_init_ref_member): Add
            two new variants, one fixed, one xfailed.
            * c-c++-common/Wdangling-pointer-5.c
            (nowarn_store_arg_store_arg): Add now-expected warnings.

Diff:
---
 gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc                    |  3 ++-
 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wdangling-pointer-5.c |  4 ++--
 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C    | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
index 2eab1d59abd..c0efb3fdb4e 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
+++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
@@ -4511,7 +4511,8 @@ pass_waccess::check_dangling_stores (basic_block bb,
 	   use the escaped locals.  */
 	return;
 
-      if (!is_gimple_assign (stmt) || gimple_clobber_p (stmt))
+      if (!is_gimple_assign (stmt) || gimple_clobber_p (stmt)
+	  || !gimple_store_p (stmt))
 	continue;
 
       access_ref lhs_ref;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wdangling-pointer-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wdangling-pointer-5.c
index 2a165cea767..cb6da9e8639 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wdangling-pointer-5.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wdangling-pointer-5.c
@@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ void nowarn_store_arg_store (void **vpp)
 
 void* nowarn_store_arg_store_arg (void **vpp1, void **vpp2)
 {
-  int x;
+  int x;              // { dg-message "'x' declared here" }
   void **p = (void**)sink (0);
-  *vpp1 = &x;         // warn here?
+  *vpp1 = &x;         // { dg-warning "storing the address of local variable 'x' in '\\*vpp1'" }
   *vpp2 = 0;          // might overwrite *vpp1
   return p;
 }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C
index 22c559e4ada..a94477a6476 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer.C
@@ -35,7 +35,34 @@ void warn_init_ref_member ()
     { }
   } ai;
 
-  sink (&as, &ai);
+  struct Al
+  {
+    const S &sref;
+    Al ():
+      // The temporary S object is destroyed when Al::Al() returns.
+      sref (S ())  // { dg-warning "storing the address" }
+    {
+      // Copying this to an SSA_NAME used to disable the warning:
+      Al *ptr = this;
+      asm ("" : "+r" (ptr));
+    }
+  } al;
+
+  struct An
+  {
+    An *next;
+    const S &sref;
+    An ():
+      next (0),
+      // The temporary S object is destroyed when An::An() returns.
+      sref (S ())  // { dg-warning "storing the address" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
+    {
+      // ??? Writing to another part of *this disables the warning:
+      next = 0;
+    }
+  } an;
+
+  sink (&as, &ai, &al, &an);
 }