From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33395 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2016 07:11:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 33329 invoked by uid 89); 15 Apr 2016 07:11:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HX-Received:Fri X-HELO: mail-qk0-f177.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f177.google.com) (209.85.220.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:11:00 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id n63so24779822qkf.0 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=5sStVEN00QHq8nEQOgpwAcNdY0o6xcHSn0EJ1T6yZxE=; b=IjT45Pxalc4uQzs6AXLOZaj/Sh3ChZLzCTJ7ciVDo+EjGuZQQ4EQARGN+tO0dcj8Kn T0tKx1Fth+/Ls3Iv/kJceOsL458tXmw3oUZoYm5kZmidpfZD6IY2/IeDXn1+h3A1PhYE 9/crJQE8MMAE9gdN4IRBrQ7ok1LvNMWBUOdVndcY5NXl2w6dkYZOUbf2Tbx3ms/nlott Z4uy8maKHzBiXK7Ga6Cb1HZSIomHS5IWeEkepp5m8OATVbsh16N5RQhDfIL0UhHgw0C+ hYF0Lkb5POVfrr6sDSz+gmsunScnweFMuzPYxVMXSpER/zvzcbeAgqOpQ/j4RnVl9wqj fPYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUpKmbvu5ONUu+rHyr/5uLUcv8uqmSBTzZCEvR81RGMKq35pOW1MMdrOaEXuoEjVzM2PJ/l/ooSkk/ONAOU MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.77.205 with SMTP id a196mr24278277qkb.94.1460704258741; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.18.106 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:10:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <570FB693.5080806@gmail.com> References: <56DCDB80.90208@gmail.com> <56F2DD43.2000206@redhat.com> <56F2F2D8.10708@gmail.com> <56F40CA1.3060005@redhat.com> <56FEFE08.8010207@gmail.com> <5702FA46.9020807@redhat.com> <5706F5D5.9030204@gmail.com> <570ADE43.9080107@gmail.com> <570D3BC1.1040608@redhat.com> <570E91B1.90602@gmail.com> <570FB693.5080806@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements From: Christophe Lyon To: Martin Sebor Cc: Andreas Schwab , Jason Merrill , Gcc Patch List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00699.txt.bz2 On 14 April 2016 at 17:26, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/14/2016 04:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Martin Sebor writes: >> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..af9624a >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> @@ -0,0 +1,711 @@ >>> +// PR c++/69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer >>> +// elements >>> +// PR c++/70019 - VLA size overflow not detected >>> +// >>> +// Runtime test to verify that attempting to either construct a VLA with >>> +// erroneous bounds, or initialize one with an initializer-list that >>> +// contains more elements than the VLA's non-constant (runtime) bounds >>> +// causes an exception to be thrown. Test also verifies that valid >>> +// VLAs and their initializers don't cause such an exception. >>> + >>> +// { dg-do run { target c++11 } } >>> +// { dg-additional-options "-Wno-vla" } >> >> >> On m68k: >> >> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C: In >> instantiation of 'struct TestType<32u>': >> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C:201:1: >> required from here >> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C:89:27: >> error: requested alignment 32 is larger than 16 [-Wattributes] > > > Thank you for the heads up (and sorry about the breakage). I've > committed r234976 to fix that. > Hi, In your follow-up commit r234981, your gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog entry says that you reverted vla11.C, but the commit does not actually modify this testcase. As a matter of fact, I see it failing on arm and aarch64. Did you forget to remove it, or did you expect r234976 to fix it? Christophe. > Martin