https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #54 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #53)
> > Yes, I forgot to mention that.
> > I hope you are right and someone will make these backports in 10.1, 10.2,
> > 10.3, 11.1, 11.2.
>
> Note one can't rewrite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #53 from Martin Liška ---
> Yes, I forgot to mention that.
> I hope you are right and someone will make these backports in 10.1, 10.2,
> 10.3, 11.1, 11.2.
Note one can't rewrite history, but as written, pull the gcc-11 branch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #52 from Martin Liška ---
It's fixed on master with r12-3350-g88974974d8188cf1 and it *got* backported to
gcc-11 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #51 from Mkkt Bkkt ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #50)
> Your reproducer does pass in trunk. So perhaps just a missing backport.
Yes, I forgot to mention that.
I hope you are right and someone will make these backports in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #50 from Avi Kivity ---
Your reproducer does pass in trunk. So perhaps just a missing backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Mkkt Bkkt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valera.mironow at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the #c42 testcase the false positive warning is gone with
r12-3529-g70ee703c479081ac2ea67eb67041551216e66783
which has been backported in
r11-9062-g17e4e6e33d13e0cf09c76cba06c5fc20deab8bb4 to 11.x.
Is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Barnabás Pőcze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pobrn at protonmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #45 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to niek from comment #43)
> Does this mean (and could you please reconfirm) that bug 95317 has
> disappeared in trunk (which will become GCC 12)?
Hi,
I am not working on a project
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe ---
folks, despite that this particular problem is of concern - I have been working
on changes that are needed for correctness (with or without sanitisers!) as any
specific fix for this PR would depend on those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #43 from niek ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #29)
> Created attachment 48771 [details]
> Testcase without lambda coroutines
>
> I modified the testcase to also build with clang and not depend on async
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
stream009 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stream009 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.3|10.4
--- Comment #41 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #40 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to niek from comment #39)
> I just tested this on the nightly build of GCC 11. Unfortunately, the issue
> is still there...
>
> @Richard Biener
> Would it be a good idea to attach this bug's target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #39 from niek ---
I just tested this on the nightly build of GCC 11. Unfortunately, the issue is
still there...
@Richard Biener
Would it be a good idea to attach this bug's target milestone to GCC 11.1?
(instead of, or in addition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #38 from Avi Kivity ---
I do not have a patch, and unfortunately, it will take me several months at the
most optimistic least to get up to speed with gcc internals to fix this. I've
switched to clang, but I'd really like to switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #37 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #36)
> A reminder that coroutines are crippled without this fixed, as it is
> standard practice these days to use sanitizers.
Although I have taken the PR, please don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #36 from Avi Kivity ---
A reminder that coroutines are crippled without this fixed, as it is standard
practice these days to use sanitizers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #35 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to niek from comment #34)
> Any progress on this issue?
>
> (The issue is still present in gcc-trunk...)
I have a couple of ideas, but very short of time to try them out, sorry about
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
niek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||niekb at scintilla dot
utwente.nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.2|10.3
--- Comment #33 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #31)
> Hi Iain,
>
> Any update on this? If there is any way I can help, please let me know. It
> has been a decade since I looked into gcc, but I should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #31 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
Hi Iain,
Any update on this? If there is any way I can help, please let me know. It has
been a decade since I looked into gcc, but I should still be able to test
patches or implement small side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #29)
> Created attachment 48771 [details]
> Testcase without lambda coroutines
>
> I modified the testcase to also build with clang and not depend on async
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48723|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48579|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:800dac8fca3cf75512913e380df339fa2253ba76
commit r10-8274-g800dac8fca3cf75512913e380df339fa2253ba76
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #25)
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #24)
> > The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
> I can confirm that the reduced testcase is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #25 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #24)
> The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
Thanks!
I can confirm that the reduced testcase is now fixed. On the original test I
still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:006f28aefeb3be575239beddc7febe56dff463a2
commit r11-1129-g006f28aefeb3be575239beddc7febe56dff463a2
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #22)
> @Iain: if you can publish your patches somewhere we can test them with our
> codebase and report.
>
> (if you can publish them on releases/gcc-10 that's even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #22 from Avi Kivity ---
@Iain: if you can publish your patches somewhere we can test them with our
codebase and report.
(if you can publish them on releases/gcc-10 that's even better).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #20)
> The attached testcase also fails with just -fsanitize=undefined. I have
> tested with gcc version
>
> gcc (GCC) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #20 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
The attached testcase also fails with just -fsanitize=undefined. I have tested
with gcc version
gcc (GCC) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48547|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #18 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #17)
> Is that the test were a lambda coroutine is called from future::then()? In
> that case it's a real use-after-free.
It was reduced from that to just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #17 from Avi Kivity ---
Is that the test were a lambda coroutine is called from future::then()? In that
case it's a real use-after-free.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #16 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
> @Rafael: Can you please append output with:
> export UBSAN_OPTIONS="print_stacktrace=1"
I also added halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:
It is
../tests/unit/coroutines_test.cc:11:5: runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> The original problem:
>
> test.cc:3749:5: runtime error: member call on misaligned address
> 0x41b58ab3 for type 'struct awaiter', which requires 8 byte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
The original problem:
test.cc:3749:5: runtime error: member call on misaligned address 0x41b58ab3
for type 'struct awaiter', which requires 8 byte alignment
0x41b58ab3: note: pointer points here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 48572
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48572=edit
fix for most of the UBSAN fails
Most of the UBSAN fails are from a single cause; I reused the built DTOR tree
on both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #12 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Thank you, can you please attach a pre-processed file (-E) so that one
> doesn't need to clone seastar repository?
The testcase that is attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
perhaps I have some invalid sharing of trees that only causes an issue for
ubsan - will try build independent dtor trees for the two cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
It seems that the ubsan complaints look all rather similar.
At least for the following case, ubsan seems to cause a change which introduces
a bogus temporary use.
class-00-co-ret.C u=is a very simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
In the meantime, I run all tests in gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/coroutines/torture and
I see:
$ g++ co-ret-17-void-ret-coro.C -fsanitize=address -fcoroutines -O2 && ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you, can you please attach a pre-processed file (-E) so that one doesn't
need to clone seastar repository?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #5 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
With a seastar patched for c++ 20 (mostly dropping a few experimental/ from
includes and experimental:: from names), the following is all that is needed:
#include
#include
using namespace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
Created attachment 48547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48547=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
Hi Rafael,
nor me, the coros implementation is a set of AST transforms - so is supposed to
present the following code with valid trees - which would be analysed "as
normal".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
56 matches
Mail list logo
