From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Martin Sebor <msebor@gcc.gnu.org>,
Sergei Trofimovich <siarheit@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] c++: suppress all warnings on memper pointers to work around dICE [PR101219]
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:38:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <67a3c9d4-2e3c-3b3f-3454-3bab7f5b6142@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210811233642.55961437@zn3>
On 8/11/21 6:36 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:19:58 -0400
> Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/21 11:34 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:41:39 -0400
>>> Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/22/21 7:15 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>>>>> From: Sergei Trofimovich <siarheit@google.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> r12-1804 ("cp: add support for per-location warning groups.") among other
>>>>> things removed warning suppression from a few places including ptrmemfuncs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently ptrmemfuncs don't have valid BINFO attached which causes ICEs
>>>>> in access checks:
>>>>>
>>>>> crash_signal
>>>>> gcc/toplev.c:328
>>>>> perform_or_defer_access_check(tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*, int, access_failure_info*)
>>>>> gcc/cp/semantics.c:490
>>>>> finish_non_static_data_member(tree_node*, tree_node*, tree_node*)
>>>>> gcc/cp/semantics.c:2208
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The change suppresses warnings again until we provide BINFOs for ptrmemfuncs.
>>>>
>>>> We don't need BINFOs for PMFs, we need to avoid paths that expect them.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the problem is with tsubst_copy_and_build calling
>>>> finish_non_static_data_member instead of build_ptrmemfunc_access_expr.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I'm not sure what would be the best way to match it. Here is
>>> my attempt seems to survive all regtests:
>>>
>>> --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
>>> @@ -20530,7 +20530,13 @@ tsubst_copy_and_build (tree t,
>>> if (member == error_mark_node)
>>> RETURN (error_mark_node);
>>>
>>> - if (TREE_CODE (member) == FIELD_DECL)
>>> + if (object_type && TYPE_PTRMEMFUNC_P(object_type)
>>> + && TREE_CODE (member) == FIELD_DECL)
>>> + {
>>> + r = build_ptrmemfunc_access_expr (object, DECL_NAME(member));
>>> + RETURN (r);
>>> + }
>>> + else if (TREE_CODE (member) == FIELD_DECL)
>>> {
>>> r = finish_non_static_data_member (member, object, NULL_TREE);
>>> if (TREE_CODE (r) == COMPONENT_REF)
>>>
>>>>> PR c++/101219
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * typeck.c (build_ptrmemfunc_access_expr): Suppress all warnings
>>>>> to avoid ICE.
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * g++.dg/torture/pr101219.C: New test.
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't need to be in torture; it has nothing to do with optimization.
>>>
>>> Aha, moved to gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr101219.C.
>>>
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr101219.C
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>> +/* PR c++/101219 - ICE on use of uninitialized memfun pointer
>>> + { dg-do compile }
>>> + { dg-options "-Wall" } */
>>> +
>>> +struct S { void m(); };
>>> +
>>> +template <int> bool f() {
>>> + void (S::*mp)();
>>> +
>>> + return &S::m == mp; // no warning emitted here (no instantiation)
>>> +}
>>>
>>> Another question: Is it expected that gcc generates no warnings here?
>>> It's an uninstantiated function (-1 for warn), but from what I
>>> understand it's guaranteed to generate comparison with uninitialized
>>> data if it ever gets instantiated. Given that we used to ICE in
>>> warning code gcc could possibly flag it? (+1 for warn)
>>
>> Generally it's desirable to diagnose templates for which no valid
>> instantiation is possible. It seems reasonable in most cases to also
>> warn about templates for which all instantiations would warn.
>>
>> But uninitialized warnings rely on flow analysis that we only do on
>> instantiated functions, and in any case the ICE doesn't depend on mp
>> being uninitialized; I get the same crash if I add = 0 to the declaration.
>
> Aha. That makes sense. Let's just fix ICE then.
>
>>> + if (object_type && TYPE_PTRMEMFUNC_P(object_type)
>>
>> Missing space before (.
>>
>>> + && TREE_CODE (member) == FIELD_DECL)
>>> + {
>>> + r = build_ptrmemfunc_access_expr (object, DECL_NAME(member));
>>
>> And here.
>
> Added both. Attached as v3.
OK, thanks.
Jason
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-12 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-22 23:15 Sergei Trofimovich
2021-07-23 16:33 ` Jeff Law
2021-07-23 21:32 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2021-07-29 15:41 ` Jason Merrill
2021-08-06 15:34 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2021-08-11 19:19 ` Jason Merrill
2021-08-11 22:36 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2021-08-12 14:38 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
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=67a3c9d4-2e3c-3b3f-3454-3bab7f5b6142@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=msebor@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=siarheit@google.com \
--cc=slyfox@gentoo.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).