On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:15 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> We ICE on the following testcase, because ivcanon calls
> gimple_build_builtin_unreachable but doesn't expect it would need vops.
> BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP I've introduced yesterday doesn't need
> vops and should be used in that case instead of BUILT_IN_TRAP which
> needs them.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
OK.
> 2023-02-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/108655
> * ubsan.cc (sanitize_unreachable_fn): For -funreachable-traps
> or -fsanitize=unreachable -fsanitize-trap=unreachable return
> BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP decl rather than BUILT_IN_TRAP.
>
> * gcc.dg/pr108655.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/ubsan.cc.jj 2023-01-02 09:32:38.393053992 +0100
> +++ gcc/ubsan.cc 2023-02-03 11:40:47.047399386 +0100
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ sanitize_unreachable_fn (tree *data, loc
> ? (flag_sanitize_trap & SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE)
> : flag_unreachable_traps)
> {
> - fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_TRAP);
> + fn = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UNREACHABLE_TRAP);
> *data = NULL_TREE;
> }
> else if (san)
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c.jj 2023-02-03 11:46:39.533190031 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr108655.c 2023-02-03 11:46:28.272356439 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/108655 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-w -O1 -funreachable-traps" } */
> +
> +void
> +foo (void)
> +{
> + int i, j;
> + for (; i;)
> + ;
> + for (; i < 6;)
> + for (j = 0; j < 6; ++j)
> + i += j;
> + __builtin_trap ();
> +}
>
> Jakub
>
