* [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds
@ 2022-10-21 15:29 Qing Zhao
2022-10-22 16:54 ` Martin Sebor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qing Zhao @ 2022-10-21 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener, Jakub Jelinek, Martin Sebor; +Cc: gcc Patches
Hi,
(FAM below refers to Flexible Array Members):
I need inputs on how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds.
Our initial goal is to update -Warray-bounds with multiple levels of -fstrict-flex-arrays=N
to issue warnings according to the different levels of “N”.
However, after detailed study, I found that this goal was very hard to be achieved.
1. -fstrict-flex-arrays and its levels
The new option -fstrict-flex-arrays has 4 levels:
level trailing arrays
treated as FAM
0 [],[0],[1],[n] the default without option
1 [],[0],[1]
2 [],[0]
3 [] the default when option specified without value
2. -Warray-bounds and its levels
The option -Warray-bounds currently has 2 levels:
level trailing arrays
treated as FAM
1 [],[0],[1] the default when option specified without value
2 []
i.e,
When -Warray-bounds=1, it treats [],[0],[1] as FAM, the same level as -fstrict-flex-arrays=1;
When -Warray-bounds=2, it only treat [] as FAM, the same level as -fstrict-flex-arrays=3;
3. How to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays and -Warray-bounds?
Question 1: when -fstrict-flex-arrays does not present, the default is -strict-flex-arrays=0,
which treats [],[0],[1],[n] as FAM, so should we update the default behavior
of -Warray-bounds to treat any trailing array [n] as FAMs?
My immediate answer to Q1 is NO, we shouldn’t, that will be a big regression on -Warray-bounds, right?
Question 2: when -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 and -Warray-bounds=N2 present at the same time,
Which one has higher priority? N1 or N2?
-fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 controls how the compiler code generation treats the trailing arrays as FAMs, it seems
reasonable to give higher priority to N1, However, then should we completely disable the level of -Warray-bounds
N2 under such situation?
I really don’t know what’s the best way to handle the conflict between N1 and N2.
Can we completely cancel the 2 levels of -Warray-bounds, and always honor the level of -fstrict-flex-arrays?
Any comments or suggestion will be helpful.
thanks.
Qing
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds
2022-10-21 15:29 [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds Qing Zhao
@ 2022-10-22 16:54 ` Martin Sebor
2022-10-24 7:30 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-24 14:21 ` Qing Zhao
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Martin Sebor @ 2022-10-22 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qing Zhao, Richard Biener, Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc Patches
On 10/21/22 09:29, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (FAM below refers to Flexible Array Members):
>
> I need inputs on how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds.
>
> Our initial goal is to update -Warray-bounds with multiple levels of -fstrict-flex-arrays=N
> to issue warnings according to the different levels of “N”.
> However, after detailed study, I found that this goal was very hard to be achieved.
>
> 1. -fstrict-flex-arrays and its levels
>
> The new option -fstrict-flex-arrays has 4 levels:
>
> level trailing arrays
> treated as FAM
>
> 0 [],[0],[1],[n] the default without option
> 1 [],[0],[1]
> 2 [],[0]
> 3 [] the default when option specified without value
>
> 2. -Warray-bounds and its levels
>
> The option -Warray-bounds currently has 2 levels:
>
> level trailing arrays
> treated as FAM
>
> 1 [],[0],[1] the default when option specified without value
> 2 []
>
> i.e,
> When -Warray-bounds=1, it treats [],[0],[1] as FAM, the same level as -fstrict-flex-arrays=1;
> When -Warray-bounds=2, it only treat [] as FAM, the same level as -fstrict-flex-arrays=3;
>
> 3. How to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays and -Warray-bounds?
>
> Question 1: when -fstrict-flex-arrays does not present, the default is -strict-flex-arrays=0,
> which treats [],[0],[1],[n] as FAM, so should we update the default behavior
> of -Warray-bounds to treat any trailing array [n] as FAMs?
>
> My immediate answer to Q1 is NO, we shouldn’t, that will be a big regression on -Warray-bounds, right?
Yes, it would disable -Warray-bounds in the cases where it warns
for past-the-end accesses to trailing arrays with two or more
elements. Diagnosing those has historically (i.e., before recent
changes) been a design goal.
>
> Question 2: when -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 and -Warray-bounds=N2 present at the same time,
> Which one has higher priority? N1 or N2?
>
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 controls how the compiler code generation treats the trailing arrays as FAMs, it seems
> reasonable to give higher priority to N1,
I tend to agree. In other words, set N2' = min(N1, N2).
> However, then should we completely disable the level of -Warray-bounds
> N2 under such situation?
>
> I really don’t know what’s the best way to handle the conflict between N1 and N2.
>
> Can we completely cancel the 2 levels of -Warray-bounds, and always honor the level of -fstrict-flex-arrays?
>
> Any comments or suggestion will be helpful.
The recent -fstrict-flex-array changes aside, IIRC, there's only
a subtle distinction between the two -Warray-bounds levels (since
level 1 started warning on a number of instances that only level
2 used to diagnose a few releases ago). I think that subset of
level 2 could be merged into level 1 without increasing the rate
of false positives. Then level 2 could be assigned a new set of
potential problems to detect (such as past-the-end accesses to
trailing one-element arrays).
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds
2022-10-22 16:54 ` Martin Sebor
@ 2022-10-24 7:30 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-24 14:51 ` Qing Zhao
2022-10-24 14:21 ` Qing Zhao
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2022-10-24 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Sebor; +Cc: Qing Zhao, Jakub Jelinek, gcc Patches
On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/21/22 09:29, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > (FAM below refers to Flexible Array Members):
> >
> > I need inputs on how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays +
> > -Warray-bounds.
> >
> > Our initial goal is to update -Warray-bounds with multiple levels of
> > -fstrict-flex-arrays=N
> > to issue warnings according to the different levels of ?N?.
> > However, after detailed study, I found that this goal was very hard to be
> > achieved.
> >
> > 1. -fstrict-flex-arrays and its levels
> >
> > The new option -fstrict-flex-arrays has 4 levels:
> >
> > level trailing arrays
> > treated as FAM
> >
> > 0 [],[0],[1],[n] the default without option
> > 1 [],[0],[1]
> > 2 [],[0]
> > 3 [] the default when option specified
> > without value
> >
> > 2. -Warray-bounds and its levels
> >
> > The option -Warray-bounds currently has 2 levels:
> >
> > level trailing arrays
> > treated as FAM
> >
> > 1 [],[0],[1] the default when option specified
> > without value
> > 2 []
> >
> > i.e,
> > When -Warray-bounds=1, it treats [],[0],[1] as FAM, the same level as
> > -fstrict-flex-arrays=1;
> > When -Warray-bounds=2, it only treat [] as FAM, the same level as
> > -fstrict-flex-arrays=3;
> >
> > 3. How to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays and
> > -Warray-bounds?
> >
> > Question 1: when -fstrict-flex-arrays does not present, the default is
> > -strict-flex-arrays=0,
> > which treats [],[0],[1],[n] as FAM, so should we update
> > the default behavior
> > of -Warray-bounds to treat any trailing array [n] as
> > FAMs?
> >
> > My immediate answer to Q1 is NO, we shouldn?t, that will be a big regression
> > on -Warray-bounds, right?
>
> Yes, it would disable -Warray-bounds in the cases where it warns
> for past-the-end accesses to trailing arrays with two or more
> elements. Diagnosing those has historically (i.e., before recent
> changes) been a design goal.
>
> >
> > Question 2: when -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 and -Warray-bounds=N2 present at
> > the same time,
> > Which one has higher priority? N1 or N2?
> >
> > -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 controls how the compiler code generation treats the
> > trailing arrays as FAMs, it seems
> > reasonable to give higher priority to N1,
>
> I tend to agree. In other words, set N2' = min(N1, N2).
Yes. Or do nothing and treat them independently. Can you check whether
it's possible to distinguish -Warray-bounds from -Warray-bounds=N? I'd
say that explicit -Warray-bounds=N should exactly get the documented
set of diagnostis, independent of -fstrict-flex-arrays=N.
> > However, then should we completely disable the level of -Warray-bounds
> > N2 under such situation?
> >
> > I really don?t know what?s the best way to handle the conflict between N1
> > and N2.
> >
> > Can we completely cancel the 2 levels of -Warray-bounds, and always honor
> > the level of -fstrict-flex-arrays?
> >
> > Any comments or suggestion will be helpful.
>
> The recent -fstrict-flex-array changes aside, IIRC, there's only
> a subtle distinction between the two -Warray-bounds levels (since
> level 1 started warning on a number of instances that only level
> 2 used to diagnose a few releases ago). I think that subset of
> level 2 could be merged into level 1 without increasing the rate
> of false positives. Then level 2 could be assigned a new set of
> potential problems to detect (such as past-the-end accesses to
> trailing one-element arrays).
>
> Martin
>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman;
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds
2022-10-22 16:54 ` Martin Sebor
2022-10-24 7:30 ` Richard Biener
@ 2022-10-24 14:21 ` Qing Zhao
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qing Zhao @ 2022-10-24 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Sebor; +Cc: Richard Biener, Jakub Jelinek, gcc Patches
> On Oct 22, 2022, at 12:54 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/21/22 09:29, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi,
>> (FAM below refers to Flexible Array Members):
>> I need inputs on how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds.
>> Our initial goal is to update -Warray-bounds with multiple levels of -fstrict-flex-arrays=N
>> to issue warnings according to the different levels of “N”.
>> However, after detailed study, I found that this goal was very hard to be achieved.
>> 1. -fstrict-flex-arrays and its levels
>> The new option -fstrict-flex-arrays has 4 levels:
>> level trailing arrays
>> treated as FAM
>> 0 [],[0],[1],[n] the default without option
>> 1 [],[0],[1]
>> 2 [],[0]
>> 3 [] the default when option specified without value
>> 2. -Warray-bounds and its levels
>> The option -Warray-bounds currently has 2 levels:
>> level trailing arrays
>> treated as FAM
>> 1 [],[0],[1] the default when option specified without value
>> 2 []
>> i.e,
>> When -Warray-bounds=1, it treats [],[0],[1] as FAM, the same level as -fstrict-flex-arrays=1;
>> When -Warray-bounds=2, it only treat [] as FAM, the same level as -fstrict-flex-arrays=3;
>> 3. How to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays and -Warray-bounds?
>> Question 1: when -fstrict-flex-arrays does not present, the default is -strict-flex-arrays=0,
>> which treats [],[0],[1],[n] as FAM, so should we update the default behavior
>> of -Warray-bounds to treat any trailing array [n] as FAMs?
>> My immediate answer to Q1 is NO, we shouldn’t, that will be a big regression on -Warray-bounds, right?
>
> Yes, it would disable -Warray-bounds in the cases where it warns
> for past-the-end accesses to trailing arrays with two or more
> elements. Diagnosing those has historically (i.e., before recent
> changes) been a design goal.
>
>> Question 2: when -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 and -Warray-bounds=N2 present at the same time,
>> Which one has higher priority? N1 or N2?
>> -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 controls how the compiler code generation treats the trailing arrays as FAMs, it seems
>> reasonable to give higher priority to N1,
>
> I tend to agree. In other words, set N2' = min(N1, N2).
>
>> However, then should we completely disable the level of -Warray-bounds
>> N2 under such situation?
>> I really don’t know what’s the best way to handle the conflict between N1 and N2.
>> Can we completely cancel the 2 levels of -Warray-bounds, and always honor the level of -fstrict-flex-arrays?
>> Any comments or suggestion will be helpful.
>
> The recent -fstrict-flex-array changes aside, IIRC, there's only
> a subtle distinction between the two -Warray-bounds levels (since
> level 1 started warning on a number of instances that only level
> 2 used to diagnose a few releases ago).
From the doc: (and I also checked the source code)
-Warray-bounds=2
This warning level also warns about out of bounds accesses to trailing
struct members of one-element array types (@pxref{Zero Length}) and about
the intermediate results of pointer arithmetic that may yield out of bounds
values. This warning level may give a larger number of false positives and
is deactivated by default.
As I understand, -Warray-bounds=1 (i.e., -Warray-bounds) will report out-of-bounds access to trailing arrays with two or more elements, and treat trailing arrays with 0 or 1 as FAMs;
-Warray-bounds=2 will report out-of-bounds access to trailing arrays with 0 or 1elements in addition to -Warray-bounds =1.
Is the above understanding correct?
> I think that subset of
> level 2 could be merged into level 1 without increasing the rate
> of false positives. Then level 2 could be assigned a new set of
> potential problems to detect (such as past-the-end accesses to
> trailing one-element arrays).
If I understand correctly, Current Level 2 already include warning about past-the-end accesses to trailing one-element arrays (and also 0-length arrays).
Qing
>
> Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds
2022-10-24 7:30 ` Richard Biener
@ 2022-10-24 14:51 ` Qing Zhao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qing Zhao @ 2022-10-24 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: Martin Sebor, Jakub Jelinek, gcc Patches
> On Oct 24, 2022, at 3:30 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/22 09:29, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> (FAM below refers to Flexible Array Members):
>>>
>>> I need inputs on how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays +
>>> -Warray-bounds.
>>>
>>> Our initial goal is to update -Warray-bounds with multiple levels of
>>> -fstrict-flex-arrays=N
>>> to issue warnings according to the different levels of ?N?.
>>> However, after detailed study, I found that this goal was very hard to be
>>> achieved.
>>>
>>> 1. -fstrict-flex-arrays and its levels
>>>
>>> The new option -fstrict-flex-arrays has 4 levels:
>>>
>>> level trailing arrays
>>> treated as FAM
>>>
>>> 0 [],[0],[1],[n] the default without option
>>> 1 [],[0],[1]
>>> 2 [],[0]
>>> 3 [] the default when option specified
>>> without value
>>>
>>> 2. -Warray-bounds and its levels
>>>
>>> The option -Warray-bounds currently has 2 levels:
>>>
>>> level trailing arrays
>>> treated as FAM
>>>
>>> 1 [],[0],[1] the default when option specified
>>> without value
>>> 2 []
>>>
>>> i.e,
>>> When -Warray-bounds=1, it treats [],[0],[1] as FAM, the same level as
>>> -fstrict-flex-arrays=1;
>>> When -Warray-bounds=2, it only treat [] as FAM, the same level as
>>> -fstrict-flex-arrays=3;
>>>
>>> 3. How to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays and
>>> -Warray-bounds?
>>>
>>> Question 1: when -fstrict-flex-arrays does not present, the default is
>>> -strict-flex-arrays=0,
>>> which treats [],[0],[1],[n] as FAM, so should we update
>>> the default behavior
>>> of -Warray-bounds to treat any trailing array [n] as
>>> FAMs?
>>>
>>> My immediate answer to Q1 is NO, we shouldn?t, that will be a big regression
>>> on -Warray-bounds, right?
>>
>> Yes, it would disable -Warray-bounds in the cases where it warns
>> for past-the-end accesses to trailing arrays with two or more
>> elements. Diagnosing those has historically (i.e., before recent
>> changes) been a design goal.
>>
>>>
>>> Question 2: when -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 and -Warray-bounds=N2 present at
>>> the same time,
>>> Which one has higher priority? N1 or N2?
>>>
>>> -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 controls how the compiler code generation treats the
>>> trailing arrays as FAMs, it seems
>>> reasonable to give higher priority to N1,
>>
>> I tend to agree. In other words, set N2' = min(N1, N2).
>
> Yes. Or do nothing and treat them independently.
I prefer treating them independently.
If there is no multiple levels of -Warray-bounds, it’s safe and reasonable to control -Warray-bounds with
different levels of -fstrict-flex-arrays=N. However, the current -Warray-bounds already has multiple levels which
have been exposed to and been used by the end users. Changing their behavior will impact the end-users.
> Can you check whether
> it's possible to distinguish -Warray-bounds from -Warray-bounds=N?
The current difference between -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds=2 is: -Warray-bounds=2
will NOT treat 0-length arrays and 1-element arrays as FAMs. Therefore report out-of-bounds
access to 0-lenght arrays or 1-element arrays.
> I'd
> say that explicit -Warray-bounds=N should exactly get the documented
> set of diagnostis, independent of -fstrict-flex-arrays=N.
If we decide to make -fstrict-flex-arrays=N1 and -Warray-bounds=N2 independently.
How about -fstrict-flex-array=N and -Wstringop-overflow (-Wstringop-overread, etc)?
Shall we control -Wstringop-overflow with -fstrict-flex-array=N? Or treat them independently?
Qing
>
>>> However, then should we completely disable the level of -Warray-bounds
>>> N2 under such situation?
>>>
>>> I really don?t know what?s the best way to handle the conflict between N1
>>> and N2.
>>>
>>> Can we completely cancel the 2 levels of -Warray-bounds, and always honor
>>> the level of -fstrict-flex-arrays?
>>>
>>> Any comments or suggestion will be helpful.
>>
>> The recent -fstrict-flex-array changes aside, IIRC, there's only
>> a subtle distinction between the two -Warray-bounds levels (since
>> level 1 started warning on a number of instances that only level
>> 2 used to diagnose a few releases ago). I think that subset of
>> level 2 could be merged into level 1 without increasing the rate
>> of false positives. Then level 2 could be assigned a new set of
>> potential problems to detect (such as past-the-end accesses to
>> trailing one-element arrays).
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>
> --
> Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg,
> Germany; GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman;
> HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-24 14:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-10-21 15:29 [RFC] how to handle the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays + -Warray-bounds Qing Zhao
2022-10-22 16:54 ` Martin Sebor
2022-10-24 7:30 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-24 14:51 ` Qing Zhao
2022-10-24 14:21 ` Qing Zhao
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).