On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
positives in assignments and copies involving virtual inheritance.
Because the two warnings don't share code yet (hopefully in GCC 12)
the attached patch adds its own workaround for this problem to
gimple-array-bounds.cc, this one slightly more crude because of
the limited insight the array bounds checking has into the checked
expressions.
Tested on x86_64-linux.
Martin
gcc-98266.diff
PR middle-end/98266 - bogus array subscript is partly outside array
bounds on virtual inheritance
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR middle-end/98266
* gimple-array-bounds.cc
(array_bounds_checker::check_array_bounds):
Avoid checking references involving artificial members.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR middle-end/98266
* g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-15.C: New test.
It seems to me that we've got the full statement at some point and
thus
the full expression so at some point couldn't we detect when
TYPE_SIZE_UNIT!= DECL_SIZE_UNIT? Or should we be using
TYPE_SIZE_UNIT
rather than DECL_SIZE_UNIT in gimple-array-bounds.cc
Am I missing something?
The expression we're looking at when the false positive is issued
is the MEM_REF in the LHS of:
MEM[(struct D *)&D.2652 + 24B]._vptr.D = &MEM <int (*) ()> [(void
*)&_ZTC1E24_1D + 24B];
TREE_TYPE(LHS) is D, DECL_SIZE_UNIT (D.2652) is 24, and
TYPE_SIZE_UNIT(D) is also 24, so there's no discrepancy between
DECL_SIZE and TYPE_SIZE.
So that seems like it's a different issue then, unrelated to 97595.
Right?
I think the underlying problem is the same. We're getting a size
that doesn't correspond to what's actually being accessed, and it
happens because of the virtual inheritance. In pr97595 Jason
suggested to use the decl/type size inequality to identify this
case but I think we could have just as well used DECL_ARTIFICIAL
instead. At least the test cases from pr97595 both pass with
this change.
But in the 98266 case the type and decl sizes are the same. So to be
true that would mean that the underlying type we're using to access
memory differs from its actual type. Is that the case in the IL? And
does this have wider implications for diagnostics or optimizations that
rely on accurate type sizing?
I'm just trying to make sure I understand, not accepting or rejecting
the patch yet.
The part of the IL with the MEM_REF is this:
void g ()
{
void * D.2789;
struct E D.2652;
<bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
E::E (&D.2652, "");
f (&D.2652);
<bb 3> [local count: 1073741824]:
MEM[(struct D *)&D.2652 + 24B]._vptr.D = &MEM <int (*) ()> [(void
*)&_ZTC1E24_1D + 24B];
...
The access here is to the _vptr.D pointer member of D.2652 which is
just past the end of the parent object (as reflected by its SIZE):
it sets sets up the virtual table pointer.
The access in pr97595 is to the member subobject, which, as Jason
explained (and I accordingly documented under DECL_SIZE in tree.h),
is also laid out separately from the parent object.
These cases aren't exactly the same (which is also why the test
I added for -Warray-bounds in pr97595 didn't expose this bug) but
they are closely related. The one here can be distinguished by
DECL_ARTIFICAL. The other by the DECL_SIZE != TYPE_SIZE member
inequality.
Might this impact other warnings? I'd say so if they don't take
these things into account. I just learned about this in pr97595
which was a -Wstringop-overflow false positive but I also saw
a similar instance of -Warray-bounds with my patch to improve
caching and enhance array bounds checking. I dealt with that
instance of the warning in that patch but proactively added
a test case to the fix for pr97595. But the test case is focused
on the subobject access and not on one to the virtual table so
(as I said above) it didn't expose this bug.
Might this also impact optimizations? I can imagine someone
unaware of this "gotcha" making the same "naive" assumption
I did, but I'd also expect such an invalid assumption to be
found either in code review or quickly cause problems in
testing.
Jeff, does this answer your question?
I don't see how the issue here depends on the artificiality of the vptr;
I'd expect to see the same problem with a data member. The problem is
that a D base subobject is smaller than a complete D object, and in this
case the base subobject is allocated such that if it were a full D
object, it would overlap the end of E. And we're checking the MEM_REF
as though accessing a full D object, so we get a warning.
The general issue about the confusion between complete and as-base types
is PR 22488; I have various thoughts about a proper fix, but there have
always been higher-priority things to work on.
One possible approach to this PR is that we don't need to check an
intermediate _REF; in
MEM[(struct D *)&D.2651 + 24B]._vptr.D
we aren't loading a whole D, we're only looking at the _vptr, which is
within the bounds of E.
Jason
