From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gimple-fold: fix location of loads for memory ops [PR104308]
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:29:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc1nFRZQsOf55OfMf5CUZwxftNiJDLXAp+QZG-aeJ4iC1g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220325212643.773729-1-dmalcolm@redhat.com>
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:27 PM David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> PR analyzer/104308 reports that when -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value
> complains about certain memmove operations where the source is
> uninitialized, the diagnostic uses UNKNOWN_LOCATION:
>
> In function 'main':
> cc1: warning: use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' [CWE-457] [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value]
> 'main': event 1
> |
> |pr104308.c:5:8:
> | 5 | char s[5]; /* { dg-message "region created on stack here" } */
> | | ^
> | | |
> | | (1) region created on stack here
> |
> 'main': event 2
> |
> |cc1:
> | (2): use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' here
> |
>
> The issue is that gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op converts a memmove to:
>
> _3 = MEM <unsigned short> [(char * {ref-all})_1];
> MEM <unsigned short> [(char * {ref-all})&s] = _3;
>
> but only sets the location of the 2nd stmt, not the 1st.
>
> Fixed thusly, giving:
>
> pr104308.c: In function 'main':
> pr104308.c:6:3: warning: use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' [CWE-457] [-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value]
> 6 | memmove(s, s + 1, 2); /* { dg-warning "use of uninitialized value" } */
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 'main': events 1-2
> |
> | 5 | char s[5]; /* { dg-message "region created on stack here" } */
> | | ^
> | | |
> | | (1) region created on stack here
> | 6 | memmove(s, s + 1, 2); /* { dg-warning "use of uninitialized value" } */
> | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | | |
> | | (2) use of uninitialized value '*(short unsigned int *)&s + 1' here
> |
>
> One side-effect of this change is a change in part of the output of
> gcc.dg/uninit-40.c from:
>
> uninit-40.c:47:3: warning: ‘*(long unsigned int *)(&u[1][0][0])’ is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized]
> 47 | __builtin_memcpy (&v[1], &u[1], sizeof (V));
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> uninit-40.c:45:5: note: ‘*(long unsigned int *)(&u[1][0][0])’ was declared here
> 45 | V u[2], v[2];
> | ^
>
> to:
>
> uninit-40.c:47:3: warning: ‘u’ is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized]
> 47 | __builtin_memcpy (&v[1], &u[1], sizeof (V));
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> uninit-40.c:45:5: note: ‘u’ declared here
> 45 | V u[2], v[2];
> | ^
>
> What's happening is that pass "early_uninit"(29)'s call to
> maybe_warn_operand is guarded by this condition:
> 1051 else if (gimple_assign_load_p (stmt)
> 1052 && gimple_has_location (stmt))
>
> Before the patch, the stmt:
> _3 = MEM <unsigned long> [(char * {ref-all})&u + 8B];
> has no location, and so early_uninit skips this operand at line
> 1052 above. Later, pass "uninit"(217) tests the var_decl "u$8", and
> emits a warning for it.
>
> With the patch, the stmt has a location, and so early_uninit emits a
> warning for "u" and sets a NW_UNINIT warning suppression at that
> location. Later, pass "uninit"(217)'s test of "u$8" is rejected
> due to that per-location suppression of uninit warnings, from the
> earlier warning.
>
> Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> OK for stage 4? or for next stage 1?
OK for stage4.
Thanks,
Richard.
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR analyzer/104308
> * gimple-fold.cc (gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op): When optimizing
> to loads then stores, set the location of the new load stmt.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> PR analyzer/104308
> * gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c: New test.
> * gcc.dg/uninit-40.c (foo): Update expression in expected message.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> ---
> gcc/gimple-fold.cc | 1 +
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c | 8 ++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-40.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-fold.cc b/gcc/gimple-fold.cc
> index 5eff7d68ac1..e73bc6a7137 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimple-fold.cc
> +++ b/gcc/gimple-fold.cc
> @@ -1039,6 +1039,7 @@ gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
> new_stmt);
> gimple_assign_set_lhs (new_stmt, srcmem);
> gimple_set_vuse (new_stmt, gimple_vuse (stmt));
> + gimple_set_location (new_stmt, loc);
> gsi_insert_before (gsi, new_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
> }
> if (dest_align < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (mode))
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..9cd5ee6feee
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr104308.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> +#include <string.h>
> +
> +int main()
> +{
> + char s[5]; /* { dg-message "region created on stack here" } */
> + memmove(s, s + 1, 2); /* { dg-warning "use of uninitialized value" } */
> + return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-40.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-40.c
> index 8708079d397..567707a885e 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-40.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-40.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ foo (int *q)
> /* memcpy folding is too target dependent to test it everywhere. */
> V u[2], v[2];
> u[0][0][0] = 1;
> - __builtin_memcpy (&v[1], &u[1], sizeof (V)); /* { dg-warning "'\\*\\(\(long \)?long unsigned int \\*\\)\\(&u\\\[1\\\]\\\[0\\\]\\\[0\\\]\\)' is used uninitialized" "" { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
> + __builtin_memcpy (&v[1], &u[1], sizeof (V)); /* { dg-warning "'u' is used uninitialized" "" { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
> baz (&v[1]);
> #endif
> }
> --
> 2.26.3
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-28 8:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-25 21:26 David Malcolm
2022-03-28 8:29 ` Richard Biener [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=CAFiYyc1nFRZQsOf55OfMf5CUZwxftNiJDLXAp+QZG-aeJ4iC1g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=dmalcolm@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.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).