public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] look harder for MEM_REF operand equality to avoid -Wstringop-truncation (PR 84561)
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 17:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9ca1c7dc-041a-3e15-a191-34d16a68aa2f@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DA544E5B-097A-43BB-806E-FD8D24DF577A@gmail.com>

On 08/30/2018 11:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 30, 2018 6:54:21 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/30/2018 02:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:12 AM Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The attached patch adds code to work harder to determine whether
>>>> the destination of an assignment involving MEM_REF is the same
>>>> as the destination of a prior strncpy call.  The included test
>>>> case demonstrates when this situation comes up.  During ccp,
>>>> dstbase and lhsbase returned by get_addr_base_and_unit_offset()
>>>> end up looking like this:
>>>
>>> "During CCP" means exactly when?  The CCP lattice tracks copies
>>> so CCP should already know that _1 == _8.  I suppose during
>>> substitute_and_fold then?  But that replaces uses before folding
>>> the stmt.
>>
>> Yes, when ccp_finalize() performs the final substitution during
>> substitute_and_fold().
>
> But then you shouldn't need the loop but at most look at the pointer SSA Def to get at the non-invariant ADDR_EXPR.

I don't follow.   Are you suggesting to compare
SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (dstbase) to SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (lhsbase) for
equality?  They're not equal.

The first loop iterates once and retrieves

   1.  _8 = &pb_3(D)->a;

The second loop iterates three times and retrieves:

   1.  _1 = _9
   2.  _9 = _8
   3.  _8 = &pb_3(D)->a;

How do I get from _1 to &pb_3(D)->a without iterating?  Or are
you saying to still iterate but compare the SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT?

Martin

>
> Richard.
>
>> Martin
>>
>>>
>>> So I'm confused.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    _8 = &pb_3(D)->a;
>>>>    _9 = _8;
>>>>    _1 = _9;
>>>>    strncpy (MEM_REF (&pb_3(D)->a), ...);
>>>>    MEM[(struct S *)_1].a[n_7] = 0;
>>>>
>>>> so the loops follow the simple assignments until we get at
>>>> the ADDR_EXPR assigned to _8 which is the same as the strncpy
>>>> destination.
>>>>
>>>> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-30 17:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-30  0:12 Martin Sebor
2018-08-30  8:35 ` Richard Biener
2018-08-30 16:54   ` Martin Sebor
2018-08-30 17:22     ` Richard Biener
2018-08-30 17:39       ` Martin Sebor [this message]
2018-08-31 10:07         ` Richard Biener
2018-09-12 18:03           ` Martin Sebor
2018-09-14 21:35             ` Jeff Law
2018-09-14 23:44               ` Martin Sebor
2018-09-17 23:13                 ` Jeff Law
2018-09-18 17:38                   ` Martin Sebor
2018-09-18 19:24                     ` Jeff Law
2018-09-18 20:01                       ` Martin Sebor
2018-09-19  5:40                         ` Jeff Law
2018-09-19 14:31                           ` Martin Sebor
2018-09-20  9:21                             ` Richard Biener
2018-09-21 14:50                               ` Martin Sebor
2018-10-01 21:46                                 ` [PING] " Martin Sebor
2018-10-08 22:03                                   ` [PING #2] " Martin Sebor
2018-10-31 17:11                                     ` [PING #3] " Martin Sebor
2018-11-16  3:09                                       ` [PING #4] " Martin Sebor
2018-11-16  8:46                                         ` Richard Biener
2018-11-19 14:55                                           ` Jeff Law
2018-11-19 16:27                                           ` Martin Sebor
2018-11-20  9:23                                             ` Richard Biener
2018-10-04  3:08                             ` Jeff Law
2018-09-19 13:51                       ` Richard Biener
2018-09-15  8:43 Bernd Edlinger
2018-09-17 17:34 ` Jeff Law
2018-09-17 17:50   ` Richard Biener
2018-09-17 18:41     ` Bernd Edlinger
2018-09-17 21:18     ` Martin Sebor
2018-09-18  0:17       ` Jeff Law
2018-09-18  2:49         ` 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=9ca1c7dc-041a-3e15-a191-34d16a68aa2f@gmail.com \
    --to=msebor@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.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).