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] Fix pattern causing C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPRs leak into gimplifier (PR c/68513)


On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:35:10PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Look how 'x' is duplicated in the result of the pattern, and since (because of
> > > the volatile 'e') it has TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS, we need to wrap it in a SAVE_EXPR,
> > > which means the convert() produces
> > > 
> > > (short int) (((SAVE_EXPR <c_maybe_const_expr <i> != 0 ? (unsigned short)
> > >                c_maybe_const_expr <*e > : 0>)
> > >               ^ (unsigned short) i) & (unsigned short) u
> > >              ^ (SAVE_EXPR <c_maybe_const_expr <i > != 0 ? (unsigned short)
> > >                 c_maybe_const_expr <*e > : 0>))
> > > 
> > > What's important is that we end up with a C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR in a SAVE_EXPR.
> > > 
> > > Down the line, we get into c_process_expr_stmt, where there's
> > > 
> > >   expr = c_fully_fold (expr, false, NULL);
> > > 
> > > so we try to fully-fold the whole expression.  However, c_fully_fold just
> > > gives up when it sees a SAVE_EXPR, so it doesn't scrub out C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR.
> > > It then leaks into the gimplifier and crashes.
> > 
> > Ran into similar issues many times in the past, the main issue is that the C
> > FE wants that before c_fully_fold is called on some expression that nobody
> > wraps anything into a SAVE_EXPR except by calling c_save_expr.
> > So, unless we get rid of that (severe) limitation, we should make sure
> > that either match.pd never creates SAVE_EXPRs when called from the "early"
> > spots in the C FE, or that it uses c_save_expr instead of save_expr.
> > But finding out if you have an expression on which c_fully_fold has been
> > already called or not is non-trivial too.
> > 
> > Wonder if we couldn't use some FE specific bit on the SAVE_EXPR to say
> > whether c_fully_fold_internal has already processed it or not, and just
> > get rid of c_save_expr, in c_fully_fold* recurse into SAVE_EXPRs too, but
> > only if that bit is not yet already set, and set it afterwards.
> 
> c_gimplify_expr and SAVE_EXPR_RESOLVED_P would work as well I guess?

Or simply not call fold () from convert () -> convert_to_integer ().

Richard.


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