[PATCH] testsuite/102690 - XFAIL g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C

[PATCH] testsuite/102690 - XFAIL g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C

[Richard Biener]

This XFAILs the bogus diagnostic test and rectifies the expectation
on the optimization.

Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.

2021-11-10  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

	PR testsuite/102690
	* g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C: XFAIL diagnostic part
	and optimization.
---
 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
index 17b4d0d194e..89cbadb91c7 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
@@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ struct S
     p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
 
     for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
-      new (p + i) int ();
+      new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-* } } */
   }
 };
 
 S a (0);
 
-/* Verify the loop has been eliminated.
-   { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "goto" "optimized" } } */
+/* The loop cannot be eliminated since the global 'new' can change 'm'.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "goto" "optimized" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH] testsuite/102690 - XFAIL g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C

[Martin Sebor]

On 11/10/21 3:09 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This XFAILs the bogus diagnostic test and rectifies the expectation
> on the optimization.
> 
> Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
> 
> 2021-11-10  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
> 
> 	PR testsuite/102690
> 	* g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C: XFAIL diagnostic part
> 	and optimization.
> ---
>   gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> index 17b4d0d194e..89cbadb91c7 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> @@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ struct S
>       p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
>   
>       for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
> -      new (p + i) int ();
> +      new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-* } } */
>     }
>   };
>   
>   S a (0);
>   
> -/* Verify the loop has been eliminated.
> -   { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "goto" "optimized" } } */
> +/* The loop cannot be eliminated since the global 'new' can change 'm'.  */

I don't understand this comment.  Can you please explain how
the global operator new (i.e., the one outside the loop below)
can change the member of the class whose ctor calls the new?

The member, or more precisely the enclosing object, doesn't
yet exist at the time the global new is called because its
ctor hasn't finished, so nothing outside the ctor can access
it.  A pointer to the S under construction can be used (and
could be accessed by a replacement new) but it cannot be
dereferenced to access its members because the object it
points to doesn't exist until after the ctor completes.

I copy the test below:

inline void* operator new (__SIZE_TYPE__, void * v)
{
   return v;
}

struct S
{
   int* p;
   int m;

   S (int i)
   {
     m = i;
     p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];

     for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
       new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail 
*-*-* } } */
   }
};

S a (0);

Thanks
Martin

Re: [PATCH] testsuite/102690 - XFAIL g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C

[Richard Biener]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:

> On 11/10/21 3:09 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This XFAILs the bogus diagnostic test and rectifies the expectation
> > on the optimization.
> > 
> > Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
> > 
> > 2021-11-10  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
> > 
> >  PR testsuite/102690
> >  * g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C: XFAIL diagnostic part
> >  and optimization.
> > ---
> >   gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C | 6 +++---
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> > index 17b4d0d194e..89cbadb91c7 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> > @@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ struct S
> >       p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
> >   
> >       for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
> > -      new (p + i) int ();
> > +      new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-* }
> > } */
> >     }
> >   };
> >   
> >   S a (0);
> >   
> > -/* Verify the loop has been eliminated.
> > -   { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "goto" "optimized" } } */
> > +/* The loop cannot be eliminated since the global 'new' can change 'm'.  */
> 
> I don't understand this comment.  Can you please explain how
> the global operator new (i.e., the one outside the loop below)
> can change the member of the class whose ctor calls the new?
> 
> The member, or more precisely the enclosing object, doesn't
> yet exist at the time the global new is called because its
> ctor hasn't finished, so nothing outside the ctor can access
> it.  A pointer to the S under construction can be used (and
> could be accessed by a replacement new) but it cannot be
> dereferenced to access its members because the object it
> points to doesn't exist until after the ctor completes.

Yes, that's the C++ legalise - which is why I XFAILed that
part of the test rather than just removed it.  The middle-end
sees the object *this as existing and being global, thus
accessible and mutable by '::new' which when replaced by
the user could access and alter *this.  Like maybe for

S s;

void *operator new(..) { s.m = 0; }

main()
{
  new (&s) (1);
}

that may be invalid C++ but this detail of C++ is not
reflected in the GIMPLE IL.  Before the change that regressed
this if S::S() would call a global function foo() instead
of new to do the allocation the behavior would be as after
the change.  Isn't the call to new or foo part of the
construction and as such obviously allowed to access
and alter the in-construction object?

> I copy the test below:
> 
> inline void* operator new (__SIZE_TYPE__, void * v)
> {
>   return v;
> }
> 
> struct S
> {
>   int* p;
>   int m;
> 
>   S (int i)
>   {
>     m = i;
>     p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
> 
>     for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
>       new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-* } }
> */
>   }
> };
> 
> S a (0);
> 
> Thanks
> Martin
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Ivo Totev; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)

Re: [PATCH] testsuite/102690 - XFAIL g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C

[Martin Sebor]

On 11/11/21 1:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>> On 11/10/21 3:09 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> This XFAILs the bogus diagnostic test and rectifies the expectation
>>> on the optimization.
>>>
>>> Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
>>>
>>> 2021-11-10  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
>>>
>>>   PR testsuite/102690
>>>   * g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C: XFAIL diagnostic part
>>>   and optimization.
>>> ---
>>>    gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C | 6 +++---
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
>>> index 17b4d0d194e..89cbadb91c7 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
>>> @@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ struct S
>>>        p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
>>>    
>>>        for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
>>> -      new (p + i) int ();
>>> +      new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-* }
>>> } */
>>>      }
>>>    };
>>>    
>>>    S a (0);
>>>    
>>> -/* Verify the loop has been eliminated.
>>> -   { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "goto" "optimized" } } */
>>> +/* The loop cannot be eliminated since the global 'new' can change 'm'.  */
>>
>> I don't understand this comment.  Can you please explain how
>> the global operator new (i.e., the one outside the loop below)
>> can change the member of the class whose ctor calls the new?
>>
>> The member, or more precisely the enclosing object, doesn't
>> yet exist at the time the global new is called because its
>> ctor hasn't finished, so nothing outside the ctor can access
>> it.  A pointer to the S under construction can be used (and
>> could be accessed by a replacement new) but it cannot be
>> dereferenced to access its members because the object it
>> points to doesn't exist until after the ctor completes.
> 
> Yes, that's the C++ legalise - which is why I XFAILed that
> part of the test rather than just removed it.  The middle-end
> sees the object *this as existing and being global, thus
> accessible and mutable by '::new' which when replaced by
> the user could access and alter *this.  Like maybe for
> 
> S s;
> 
> void *operator new(..) { s.m = 0; }
> 
> main()
> {
>    new (&s) (1);
> }
> 
> that may be invalid C++ but this detail of C++ is not
> reflected in the GIMPLE IL.  Before the change that regressed
> this if S::S() would call a global function foo() instead
> of new to do the allocation the behavior would be as after
> the change.  Isn't the call to new or foo part of the
> construction and as such obviously allowed to access
> and alter the in-construction object?

Here's my understanding.

The lifetime of an object ends when its storage is reused to
create another object of a class type, and the lifetime of
the other object begins when its initialization is complete.

In the window between the new ctor starting and completing
the new object can be accessed in limited ways, but not
the old object.  (If it were otherwise, imagine the new
object's ctor throwing in the middle of constructing the new
object.  What state would that leave the old object in?  Which
members could still be accessed?)

The only way to access a subobject of the new object while
it's still under construction is through a pointer to that
subobject or through this (or a pointer derive from this).

It seems that it should be possible to capture the constraint
in the middle end that no member of an object under construction
can be accessed unless a pointer to it has escaped that's derived
from the this pointer.

But this seems like a sufficiently obscure case that an expert
on the C++ object model should confirm it.

Martin

> 
>> I copy the test below:
>>
>> inline void* operator new (__SIZE_TYPE__, void * v)
>> {
>>    return v;
>> }
>>
>> struct S
>> {
>>    int* p;
>>    int m;
>>
>>    S (int i)
>>    {
>>      m = i;
>>      p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
>>
>>      for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
>>        new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-* } }
>> */
>>    }
>> };
>>
>> S a (0);
>>
>> Thanks
>> Martin
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH] testsuite/102690 - XFAIL g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C

[Richard Biener]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:

> On 11/11/21 1:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > 
> >> On 11/10/21 3:09 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> This XFAILs the bogus diagnostic test and rectifies the expectation
> >>> on the optimization.
> >>>
> >>> Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, pushed.
> >>>
> >>> 2021-11-10  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
> >>>
> >>>   PR testsuite/102690
> >>>   * g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C: XFAIL diagnostic part
> >>>   and optimization.
> >>> ---
> >>>    gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C | 6 +++---
> >>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> >>> index 17b4d0d194e..89cbadb91c7 100644
> >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C
> >>> @@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ struct S
> >>>        p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
> >>>    
> >>>        for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
> >>> -      new (p + i) int ();
> >>> +      new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-*
> >>> }
> >>> } */
> >>>      }
> >>>    };
> >>>    
> >>>    S a (0);
> >>>    
> >>> -/* Verify the loop has been eliminated.
> >>> -   { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "goto" "optimized" } } */
> >>> +/* The loop cannot be eliminated since the global 'new' can change 'm'.
> >>> */
> >>
> >> I don't understand this comment.  Can you please explain how
> >> the global operator new (i.e., the one outside the loop below)
> >> can change the member of the class whose ctor calls the new?
> >>
> >> The member, or more precisely the enclosing object, doesn't
> >> yet exist at the time the global new is called because its
> >> ctor hasn't finished, so nothing outside the ctor can access
> >> it.  A pointer to the S under construction can be used (and
> >> could be accessed by a replacement new) but it cannot be
> >> dereferenced to access its members because the object it
> >> points to doesn't exist until after the ctor completes.
> > 
> > Yes, that's the C++ legalise - which is why I XFAILed that
> > part of the test rather than just removed it.  The middle-end
> > sees the object *this as existing and being global, thus
> > accessible and mutable by '::new' which when replaced by
> > the user could access and alter *this.  Like maybe for
> > 
> > S s;
> > 
> > void *operator new(..) { s.m = 0; }
> > 
> > main()
> > {
> >    new (&s) (1);
> > }
> > 
> > that may be invalid C++ but this detail of C++ is not
> > reflected in the GIMPLE IL.  Before the change that regressed
> > this if S::S() would call a global function foo() instead
> > of new to do the allocation the behavior would be as after
> > the change.  Isn't the call to new or foo part of the
> > construction and as such obviously allowed to access
> > and alter the in-construction object?
> 
> Here's my understanding.
> 
> The lifetime of an object ends when its storage is reused to
> create another object of a class type, and the lifetime of
> the other object begins when its initialization is complete.
> 
> In the window between the new ctor starting and completing
> the new object can be accessed in limited ways, but not
> the old object.  (If it were otherwise, imagine the new
> object's ctor throwing in the middle of constructing the new
> object.  What state would that leave the old object in?  Which
> members could still be accessed?)
> 
> The only way to access a subobject of the new object while
> it's still under construction is through a pointer to that
> subobject or through this (or a pointer derive from this).

OK, so that might be the detail that one could exploit eventually.

> It seems that it should be possible to capture the constraint
> in the middle end that no member of an object under construction
> can be accessed unless a pointer to it has escaped that's derived
> from the this pointer.

IIRC at some point we had this * restrict qualified in the CTOR
but that broke cases where that's clearly not correct (but I forgot
the details).  Note for the middle-end that would just point at
another missed optimization, namely that restrict does not work
to disambiguate against calls.

> But this seems like a sufficiently obscure case that an expert
> on the C++ object model should confirm it.
>
> Martin
> 
> > 
> >> I copy the test below:
> >>
> >> inline void* operator new (__SIZE_TYPE__, void * v)
> >> {
> >>    return v;
> >> }
> >>
> >> struct S
> >> {
> >>    int* p;
> >>    int m;
> >>
> >>    S (int i)
> >>    {
> >>      m = i;
> >>      p = (int*) new unsigned char [sizeof (int) * m];
> >>
> >>      for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
> >>        new (p + i) int (); /* { dg-bogus "bounds" "pr102690" { xfail *-*-*
> >> } }
> >> */
> >>    }
> >> };
> >>
> >> S a (0);
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Martin
> >>
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Ivo Totev; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)