On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:47:29AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> That looks much better, I wonder if it would reproduce even if the result >> is saved somewhere (either E *e; field in S with swapping of the two class >> definitions, or global var or static data member static E *e; of S), >> otherwise the new just allocates and throws away. Ok with that change, or >> if it makes the problem no longer reproduceable, ok as is. > > It is reproduceable with all three variants. I'll commit this one shortly. > >> Note, once the LTO issues with internal functions are fixed, we need >> to grep for all those dg-skip-if and remove them. > > Yeah, definitely. I'm keeping it in mind.
I'll pre-approve removing the assert for ->leaf that currently makes internal fns ICE with LTO for now. If it makes them "work" (please double-check also code generation results). I'll coordinate with Honza on who is going to fix this for real. Richard. > 2013-11-25 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> > > testsuite/ > * g++.dg/ubsan/pr59250.C: New test. > > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr59250.C.mp3 2013-11-25 10:43:24.797315678 > +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr59250.C 2013-11-25 11:55:37.000000000 > +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ > +// PR sanitizer/59250 > +// { dg-do compile } > +// { dg-options "-fsanitize=undefined" } > +// { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-flto" } { "" } } > + > +struct E { > + int i; > +}; > + > +struct S { > + const char *s; > + S (const char *); > + static E *e; > +}; > + > +S::S (const char *) : s (0) > +{ > + e = new E (); > +} > > Marek