Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope (v2)

[Martin Liška]

On 11/01/2016 03:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> What kind of false positives it is for each case?  Is it with normal
> asan-bootstrap (without your -fsanitize-use-after-scope changes), or
> only with those changes, or only with those changes and
> -fsanitize-use-after-scope used during bootstrap?

Ok, the situation is simpler than I thought:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  int *ptr;

  switch (argc)
    {
      int a;

    case 1:
      break;

    default:
      ptr = &a;
      break;
    }

  fprintf (stderr, "v: %d\n", *ptr);
  return 0;
}

Which is gimplified as:

    int * ptr;

    switch (argc) <default: <D.2575>, case 1: <D.2573>>
    {
      int a;

      try
        {
          ASAN_MARK (2, &a, 4);
          <D.2573>:
          goto <D.2574>;
          <D.2575>:
          ptr = &a;
          goto <D.2574>;
        }
      finally
        {
          ASAN_MARK (1, &a, 4);
        }
    }
    <D.2574>:
    _1 = *ptr;
    stderr.0_2 = stderr;
    fprintf (stderr.0_2, "v: %d\n", _1);
    D.2577 = 0;
    return D.2577;
  }
  D.2577 = 0;
  return D.2577;

and thus we get:
/tmp/switch-case.c:9:11: warning: statement will never be executed 
[-Wswitch-unreachable]
       int a;

I'm wondering where properly fix that, we can either find all these ASAN_MARKs 
in gimplify_switch_expr
and distribute it to all labels (which are gimplified). Or we can put such 
variables to asan_poisoned_variables
if we have information that we're gimplifing statements before a first label. 
Do we know that from gimple context?
If so, these variables will be unpoisoned at the very beginning of each label 
and the ASAN_MARK call in between
switch statement and a first label can be removed.

Thoughts?
Thanks,
Martin