On 12/4/20 10:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
verify_sequence_points uses verify_tree to recursively walk the
subexpressions of an expression, and while recursing, it also
keeps lists of expressions found after/before a sequence point.
For a large expression, the list can grow significantly.  And
merge_tlist is at least N(n^2): for a list of length n it will
iterate n(n -1) times, and call candidate_equal_p each time, and
that can recurse further.  warn_for_collision also has to go
through the whole list.  With a large-enough expression, the
compilation can easily get stuck here for 24 hours.

This patch is a simple kludge: if we see that the expression is
overly complex, don't even try.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?

OK.

gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:

        PR c++/98126
        * c-common.c (verify_tree_lim_r): New function.
        (verify_sequence_points): Use it.  Use nullptr instead of 0.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        PR c++/98126
        * g++.dg/warn/Wsequence-point-4.C: New test.
---
  gcc/c-family/c-common.c                       | 32 +++++++++--
  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wsequence-point-4.C | 53 +++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wsequence-point-4.C

diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
index dda23520b96..0b348aec77b 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
@@ -2056,23 +2056,45 @@ verify_tree (tree x, struct tlist **pbefore_sp, struct 
tlist **pno_sp,
      }
  }
+static constexpr size_t verify_sequence_points_limit = 1024;
+
+/* Called from verify_sequence_points via walk_tree.  */
+
+static tree
+verify_tree_lim_r (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees, void *data)
+{
+  if (++*((size_t *) data) > verify_sequence_points_limit)
+    return integer_zero_node;
+
+  if (TYPE_P (*tp))
+    *walk_subtrees = 0;
+
+  return NULL_TREE;
+}
+
  /* Try to warn for undefined behavior in EXPR due to missing sequence
     points.  */
void
  verify_sequence_points (tree expr)
  {
-  struct tlist *before_sp = 0, *after_sp = 0;
+  tlist *before_sp = nullptr, *after_sp = nullptr;
+
+  /* verify_tree is highly recursive, and merge_tlist is O(n^2),
+     so we return early if the expression is too big.  */
+  size_t n = 0;
+  if (walk_tree (&expr, verify_tree_lim_r, &n, nullptr))
+    return;
- warned_ids = 0;
-  save_expr_cache = 0;
-  if (tlist_firstobj == 0)
+  warned_ids = nullptr;
+  save_expr_cache = nullptr;
+  if (!tlist_firstobj)
      {
        gcc_obstack_init (&tlist_obstack);
        tlist_firstobj = (char *) obstack_alloc (&tlist_obstack, 0);
      }
- verify_tree (expr, &before_sp, &after_sp, 0);
+  verify_tree (expr, &before_sp, &after_sp, NULL_TREE);
    warn_for_collisions (after_sp);
    obstack_free (&tlist_obstack, tlist_firstobj);
  }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wsequence-point-4.C 
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wsequence-point-4.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..1382ab5a934
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wsequence-point-4.C
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+// PR c++/98126
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-Wsequence-point" }
+// Make sure we don't hand when verify_tree processes a large expression.
+
+struct T { bool operator==(const T &ot) const; };
+
+#define CMP(M, N, L) t[100 * M + 10 * N + L] == ot.t[100 * M + 10 * N + L] &&
+
+#define CMP1(M, N) \
+  CMP(M, N, 0) \
+  CMP(M, N, 1) \
+  CMP(M, N, 2) \
+  CMP(M, N, 3) \
+  CMP(M, N, 4) \
+  CMP(M, N, 5) \
+  CMP(M, N, 6) \
+  CMP(M, N, 7) \
+  CMP(M, N, 8) \
+  CMP(M, N, 9)
+
+#define CMP2(M) \
+  CMP1(M, 0) \
+  CMP1(M, 1) \
+  CMP1(M, 2) \
+  CMP1(M, 3) \
+  CMP1(M, 4) \
+  CMP1(M, 5) \
+  CMP1(M, 6) \
+  CMP1(M, 7) \
+  CMP1(M, 8) \
+  CMP1(M, 9)
+
+#define GENERATE_CMPS \
+  CMP2(0) \
+  CMP2(1) \
+  CMP2(2) \
+  CMP2(3) \
+  CMP2(4) \
+  CMP2(5) \
+  CMP2(6) \
+  CMP2(7) \
+  CMP2(8) \
+  CMP2(9)
+
+struct C {
+  bool operator==(const C &ot) const {
+    return
+      GENERATE_CMPS
+      true;
+  }
+  T t[999];
+};

base-commit: df933e307b1950ce12472660dcac1765b8eb431d


Reply via email to