On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 11:03 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> After discussion with Jakub, I'm resending new version of the patch,
> where I changed following:
> 1) gimplify_ctxp->live_switch_vars is used to track variables
> introduced in switch_expr. Every time
>    a case_label_expr is seen, these are unpoisoned. It's quite
> conservative, however it covers all
>    corner cases on can come up with. Compared to clang, we are much
> more precise in switch statements
>    where a variable liveness crosses label boundary.
> 2) I found a bug where ASAN_CHECK was optimized out due to missing
> check of IFN_ASAN_MARK internal fn.
>    Test was added for that.
> 3) Multiple switch tests have been added, which is going to be sent
> in upcoming email.
> 
> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression
> tests (+ asan bootstrap finishes
> successfully).

The patch (r241896) introduced an error in the build of the jit:

../../src/gcc/jit/jit-builtins.c:62:1: error: invalid conversion from
‘int’ to ‘gcc::jit::built_in_attribute’ [-fpermissive]
 };
 ^

which seems to be due to the "0" for ATTRS in:

--- a/gcc/sanitizer.def
+++ b/gcc/sanitizer.def
@@ -165,6 +165,10 @@ DEF_SANITIZER_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_ASAN_BEFORE_DYNAMIC_INIT,
 DEF_SANITIZER_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_ASAN_AFTER_DYNAMIC_INIT,
 		      "__asan_after_dynamic_init",
 		      BT_FN_VOID, ATTR_NOTHROW_LEAF_LIST)
+DEF_SANITIZER_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_ASAN_CLOBBER_N, "__asan_poison_stack_memory",
+		      BT_FN_VOID_PTR_PTRMODE, 0)
+DEF_SANITIZER_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_ASAN_UNCLOBBER_N, "__asan_unpoison_stack_memory",
+		      BT_FN_VOID_PTR_PTRMODE, 0)

Is the attached patch OK as a fix? (assuming testing passes)  Or should
these builtins have other attrs?  (sorry, am not very familiar with the
sanitizer code).

Dave