Re: c/8743: receiving result from __builtin_return_address() beyond stack top causes segfault

Re: c/8743: receiving result from __builtin_return_address() beyond stack top causes segfault

[bangerth]

Synopsis: receiving result from __builtin_return_address() beyond stack top causes segfault

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Wed Dec  4 14:00:45 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Despite the given workaround, the function is not doing what
    the documentation says. This is an error.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8743

Re: c/8743: receiving result from __builtin_return_address() beyond stack top causes segfault

[Edward Welbourne]

The following reply was made to PR c/8743; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Edward Welbourne <eddy@opera.no>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: biere@inf.ethz.ch, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
	nobody@gcc.gnu.org, steven.robbins@videotron.ca
Subject: Re: c/8743: receiving result from __builtin_return_address() beyond stack top causes segfault
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:04:34 +0100

 Also: note that the work-around only fixes the problem for the *first*
 LEVEL at which it would otherwise seg-fault (which *is* just enough to
 enable backtracing in ccmalloc); it does nothing about the segfault at
 greater depth, which also happens in __builtin_frame_address(); if you
 use __builtin_frame_address(3) in place of __builtin_return_address(2)
 in the example code, you'll get a segfault just the same (on x86).
 
 [All of which rather hints that these functions do a zig-zag chain of
 pointer dereferences, which is missing an `are we zero yet' test.
 I naively imagine this will be easy to fix.]
 
 I've now had the opportunity to test the same on a ppc:
 __builtin_return_address(2) segfaults, as does
 __builtin_frame_address(4), but
 __builtin_frame_address(3) actually succeeds !
 This is with a 2.95.? version and with 3.2.1.
 
 	Eddy.