public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>
Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
	gcc-patches Paul A Clarke via <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [GCC 13][PATCH] PR101836: Add a new option -fstrict-flex-array[=n] and use it in __builtin_object_size
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:24:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6CB6B076-0635-4DE8-861E-F8EBC0B696B4@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CE3D3114-DCDC-4EC9-A913-5343A4173BEE@oracle.com>



> Am 30.06.2022 um 16:08 schrieb Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 29, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/28/22 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:15:58PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Because the flag just tells whether some array shouldn't be treated as (poor man's)
>>>>>>>>> flexible array member.  We still need to find out if some FIELD_DECL is to
>>>>>>>>> be treated like a flexible array member, which is a minority of
>>>>>>>>> COMPONENT_REFs.
>>>>>>>>> struct S { int a; char b[0]; int c; } s;
>>>>>>>>> struct T { int d; char e[]; };
>>>>>>>>> struct U { int f; struct T g; int h; } u;
>>>>>>>>> Neither s.b nor u.g.e is to be treated like flexible array member,
>>>>>>>>> no matter what -fstrict-flex-array= option is used.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Then, to resolve this issue, we might need a opposite  flag DECL_IS_FLEXARRAY in FIELD_DECL?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The default is FALSE for all FIELD_DECL.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter whether it is positive or negative, you still need to analyze
>>>>>>> it.  See the above example.  If you have struct T t; and test t.e, then it
>>>>>>> is flexarray.  But u.g.e is not, even when the COMPONENT_REF refers to the
>>>>>>> same FIELD_DECL.  In the t.e case e is the very last field, in the latter
>>>>>>> case u.g.e is the last field in struct T, but struct U has the h field after
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, do you mean that the current FE analysis will not be able to decide whether a specific array field is at the end of the enclosing structure?
>>>>>> Only the middle end can decide this ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, anything that analyzes it, can be in the FE or middle-end, but there
>>>>> is no place to store it for later.
>>> Then I am a little confused:
>>> If the FE can decide wether an array field is at the end of the enclosing structure,  then combined with whether it’s a [0], [1] or [], and which level of -fstrict-flex-array,
>>> The FE should be able to decide whether this array field is a flexible array member or not, then set the flag DECL_IS_FLEXARRAY (or DECL_NOT_FLEXARRAY).
>>> The new flag is the place to store such info, right?
>>> Do I miss anything here?
>> 
>> I think the problem is that there is just one FIELD_DECL for member
>> M of a given type T but there can be more than one instance of that
>> member, one in each struct that has a subobject of T as its own
>> member.  Whether M is or isn't a (valid) flexible array member
>> varies between the two instances.
> 
> Okay, I see. 
> A FIELD_DECL might be shared by multiple structure or unions, and whether 
> it’s a flexible array member varies between different enclosing structures or unions.
> Therefore FIELD_DECL cannot carry the flexible array member information accurately. 

No, that’s not true.  A FIELD_DELC is only shared for cv variants of a structure.


> Then, how about encoding the flexible array member information into the enclosing structure or union? 
> 
> 
> Another thing is:  All this complexity is caused by GNU extension which permits the flexible array 
> member not at the end of the struct. (As I mentioned in a previous email, I listed here again)
> 
> For example the following two examples:
> 
> 1. [opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 trailing_array]$ cat t1.c
> struct AX
> {
>  int n;
>  short ax[];
>  int m;
> };
> 
> void warn_ax_local (struct AX *p)
> {
>  p->ax[2] = 0;   
> }
> 
> 2. [opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 trailing_array]$ cat t2.c
> struct AX
> {
>  int n;
>  short ax[];
> };
> 
> struct UX
> {
>  struct AX b;
>  int m;
> };
> 
> void warn_ax_local (struct AX *p, struct UX *q)
> {
>  p->ax[2] = 0;   
>  q->b.ax[2] = 0;
> }
> 
> [opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 trailing_array]$ gcc -O2 -Wall t1.c -S
> t4.c:4:9: error: flexible array member not at end of struct
>    4 |   short ax[];
> 
> [opc@qinzhao-ol8u3-x86 trailing_array]$ gcc -O2 -Wall t2.c -S
> 
> It’s clear to see that in the above t1.c,  GCC  reports error when the flexible array member is Not at the end of the structure  (AX) that immediately enclosing the field.
> However, for t2.c, when the flexible array member is Not at the end of the structure that does not immediately enclosing it (UX), then it’s accepted.   
> 
> I am very confused about t2.c, is the struct UX a correct declaration? 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Qing
> 
>> 
>> Martin
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-30 14:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-27 14:19 Qing Zhao
2022-06-28  7:16 ` Richard Biener
2022-06-28 15:03   ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-28 15:08     ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-06-28 15:59       ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-28 16:43         ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-06-28 18:15           ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-28 18:22             ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-06-28 18:29               ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-28 18:49                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-06-28 19:01                   ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-29 21:14                     ` Martin Sebor
2022-06-30 14:07                       ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-30 14:24                         ` Richard Biener [this message]
2022-06-30 15:31                           ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-30 17:03                             ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-06-30 19:30                               ` Qing Zhao
2022-07-01  6:49                                 ` Richard Biener
2022-07-01 12:55                                   ` Qing Zhao
2022-07-01 12:58                                     ` Richard Biener
2022-07-01 13:40                                       ` Qing Zhao
2022-07-01 12:59                                     ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-07-01 14:01                                       ` Qing Zhao
2022-07-01 15:32                                         ` Martin Sebor
2022-07-04  6:49                                           ` Richard Biener
2022-07-06 14:20                                             ` Qing Zhao
2022-07-07  8:02                                               ` Richard Biener
2022-07-07 13:33                                                 ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-29 20:45           ` Qing Zhao
2022-06-28 16:21   ` Martin Sebor

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=6CB6B076-0635-4DE8-861E-F8EBC0B696B4@gmail.com \
    --to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=msebor@gmail.com \
    --cc=qing.zhao@oracle.com \
    /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).