This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH PR45098] Disallow NULL pointer in pointer arithmetic


Hi,

> >> >> > Index: tree-vrp.c
> >> >> > ===================================================================
> >> >> > --- tree-vrp.c ?(revision 173703)
> >> >> > +++ tree-vrp.c ?(working copy)
> >> >> > @@ -2273,7 +2273,12 @@ extract_range_from_binary_expr (value_ra
> >> >> > ? ? ? ?{
> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ?/* For pointer types, we are really only interested in asserting
> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? whether the expression evaluates to non-NULL. ?*/
> >> >> > - ? ? ? ? if (range_is_nonnull (&vr0) || range_is_nonnull (&vr1))
> >> >> > + ? ? ? ? if (flag_delete_null_pointer_checks && nowrap_type_p (expr_type))
> >> >>
> >> >> the latter would always return true
> >> >>
> >> >> Btw, I guess you'll "miscompile" a load of code that is strictly
> >> >> undefined. ?So I'm not sure we want to do this against our users ...
> >> >
> >> > Probably not, at least unless the user explicitly asks for it -- for example,
> >> > we could have -fdelete-null-pointer-checks=2. ?In fact, it might be a good idea
> >> > to implement this flag anyway, since some current uses of flag_delete_null_pointer_checks
> >> > can lead to "miscompilations" when user makes an error in their code and would
> >> > probably appreciate more having their program crash.
> >> >
> >> >> Oh, and of course it's even wrong. ?I thing it needs &&
> >> >> !range_includes_zero (&vr1) (which we probably don't have). ?The
> >> >> offset may be 0 and NULL + 0
> >> >> is still NULL.
> >> >
> >> > actually, the result of NULL + 0 is undefined (pointer arithmetics is only defined
> >> > for pointers to actual objects, and NULL cannot point to one).
> >>
> >> It's maybe undefined in C, but is it undefined in the middle-end? ?Thus,
> >> are you sure we never generate it from (void *)((uintptr_t)p + obfuscated_0)?
> >> I'm sure we simply fold that to p + obfuscated_0.
> >
> > if we do, we definitely should not -- the only point of such a construction is
> > to bypass the pointer arithmetics restrictions,
> 
> Ok, we don't.  Where does the C standard say that NULL + 0 is undefined?

I don't think it explicitly states that it is undefined.  But 6.5.6 #7 and #8 only
give semantics for pointers to objects,

Zdenek


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]