[PATCH] ubsan: Fix up another spot that should have been BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAPS [PR108655]

[PATCH] ubsan: Fix up another spot that should have been BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAPS [PR108655]

[Jakub Jelinek]

Hi!

We ICE on the following testcase, because ivcanon calls
gimple_build_builtin_unreachable but doesn't expect it would need vops.
BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP I've introduced yesterday doesn't need
vops and should be used in that case instead of BUILT_IN_TRAP which
needs them.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2023-02-03  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR tree-optimization/108655
	* ubsan.cc (sanitize_unreachable_fn): For -funreachable-traps
	or -fsanitize=unreachable -fsanitize-trap=unreachable return
	BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP decl rather than BUILT_IN_TRAP.

	* gcc.dg/pr108655.c: New test.

--- gcc/ubsan.cc.jj	2023-01-02 09:32:38.393053992 +0100
+++ gcc/ubsan.cc	2023-02-03 11:40:47.047399386 +0100
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ sanitize_unreachable_fn (tree *data, loc
       ? (flag_sanitize_trap & SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE)
       : flag_unreachable_traps)
     {
-      fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_TRAP);
+      fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP);
       *data = NULL_TREE;
     }
   else if (san)
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c.jj	2023-02-03 11:46:39.533190031 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c	2023-02-03 11:46:28.272356439 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* PR tree-optimization/108655 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-w -O1 -funreachable-traps" } */
+
+void
+foo (void)
+{
+  int i, j;
+  for (; i;)
+    ;
+  for (; i < 6;)
+    for (j = 0; j < 6; ++j)
+      i += j;
+  __builtin_trap ();
+}

	Jakub

Re: [PATCH] ubsan: Fix up another spot that should have been BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAPS [PR108655]

[Richard Biener]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:15 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> We ICE on the following testcase, because ivcanon calls
> gimple_build_builtin_unreachable but doesn't expect it would need vops.
> BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP I've introduced yesterday doesn't need
> vops and should be used in that case instead of BUILT_IN_TRAP which
> needs them.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

OK.

> 2023-02-03  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
>
>         PR tree-optimization/108655
>         * ubsan.cc (sanitize_unreachable_fn): For -funreachable-traps
>         or -fsanitize=unreachable -fsanitize-trap=unreachable return
>         BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP decl rather than BUILT_IN_TRAP.
>
>         * gcc.dg/pr108655.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/ubsan.cc.jj     2023-01-02 09:32:38.393053992 +0100
> +++ gcc/ubsan.cc        2023-02-03 11:40:47.047399386 +0100
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ sanitize_unreachable_fn (tree *data, loc
>        ? (flag_sanitize_trap & SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE)
>        : flag_unreachable_traps)
>      {
> -      fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_TRAP);
> +      fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP);
>        *data = NULL_TREE;
>      }
>    else if (san)
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c.jj  2023-02-03 11:46:39.533190031 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c     2023-02-03 11:46:28.272356439 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/108655 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-w -O1 -funreachable-traps" } */
> +
> +void
> +foo (void)
> +{
> +  int i, j;
> +  for (; i;)
> +    ;
> +  for (; i < 6;)
> +    for (j = 0; j < 6; ++j)
> +      i += j;
> +  __builtin_trap ();
> +}
>
>         Jakub
>