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: C++ PATCH for c++/70153 (unhandled UNARY_PLUS_EXPR causes stack overflow)


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:56:41PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:46:45PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > 2016-03-10  Marek Polacek  <polacek@redhat.com>
> > 
> > 	PR c++/70153
> > 	* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): Handle UNARY_PLUS_EXPR.
> > 
> > 	* g++.dg/delayedfold/unary-plus1.C: New test.
> > 
> > diff --git gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
> > index 6af3760..db23efe 100644
> > --- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
> > +++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
> > @@ -2009,6 +2009,8 @@ cp_fold (tree x)
> >  	  else
> >  	    x = fold_build1_loc (loc, code, TREE_TYPE (x), op0);
> >  	}
> > +      else if (code == UNARY_PLUS_EXPR)
> > +	x = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (x), op0);
> >        else
> >  	x = fold (x);
> >  
> 
> Won't this still leak UNARY_PLUS_EXPR into the folded result if
> you could fold the operand of that?  It will take the
>   x = fold_build1_loc (loc, code, TREE_TYPE (x), op0);
> path...

...of course :(.  Testcase for that:
return 2ULL * ((1 + (unsigned long int) +(1 + 0)) * i);

> Wouldn't it be better to just handle case UNARY_PLUS_EXPR:
> separately, and always optimize it away?
> So like:
>     case UNARY_PLUS_EXPR:
>       loc = EXPR_LOCATION (x);
>       op0 = cp_fold_maybe_rvalue (TREE_OPERAND (x, 0), rval_ops);
>       if (op0 == error_mark_node)
> 	x = error_mark_node;
>       else
>         x = fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (x), op0);
>       break;
> or so?

Let's ask Jason.  If he prefers this approach, I'll get it done.

Thanks,

	Marek


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