Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/15/2016 06:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:26:11AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C: In instantiation of 'struct TestType<32u>': /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C:201:1:

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:26:11AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > >/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C: In > >instantiation of 'struct TestType<32u>': > >/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160414/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C:201:1: > >required from here >

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 14 April 2016 at 17:26, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/14/2016 04:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Martin Sebor writes: >> >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

It caused: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70652 Sorry about that (I missed java among the languages when configuring my build for regression testing). I'm testing a libjava patch that I expect will eliminate the linker error. Martin

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/14/2016 04:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: Martin Sebor writes: diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C new file mode 100644 index 000..af9624a --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C @@ -0,0 +1,711 @@ +//

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

Martin Sebor writes: > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C > new file mode 100644 > index 000..af9624a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/vla11.C > @@ -0,0 +1,711 @@ > +// PR c++/69517 - [5/6 regression]

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/12/2016 12:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On 04/10/2016 07:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> The call to build_vla_check() in check_initializer() is to check >>> only explicitly initialized VLAs. The latter

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/13/2016 02:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I don't see the benefit in doing the checking in build_vec_init and split_constant_init_1 when it can all be done just in check_initializer. I'm sure you have your reasons for going that route so I'd appreciate if you could let me know why you think

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/12/2016 12:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 04/10/2016 07:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The call to build_vla_check() in check_initializer() is to check only explicitly initialized VLAs. The latter function may need to complete the VLA element type and reshape the initializer so the call

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/10/2016 07:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: The call to build_vla_check() in check_initializer() is to check only explicitly initialized VLAs. The latter function may need to complete the VLA element type and reshape the initializer so the call cannot be made earlier. The function returns the

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/12/2016 09:43 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 04/10/2016 07:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: + if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE + && variably_modified_type_p (type, NULL_TREE) + && !processing_template_decl) +{ + /* Statically check for overflow in VLA

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/10/2016 07:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: + if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE + && variably_modified_type_p (type, NULL_TREE) + && !processing_template_decl) + { + /* Statically check for overflow in VLA bounds and build +

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

Attached is an updated patch with some the changes you suggested. I also moved the new functions from decl.c to init.c because they logically seem to belong there. The suggested changes resulted in introducing the checking code into split_nonconstant_init() in cp/typeck2.c in addition to

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

I've spent a ton of time trying to implement the suggested changes (far too much in large part because of my own mistakes) but I don't think they will work. I'll try to clean up what I have and post it for review. I wanted to respond to this how in case you have some suggestions or concerns

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/01/2016 07:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Fair enough. I don't think we can impose an arbitrary 64K limit, however, as that is a lot smaller than the 8MB default stack size, and programs can use setrlimit to increase the stack farther. For GCC 6 let not impose any limit beyond

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

Fair enough. I don't think we can impose an arbitrary 64K limit, however, as that is a lot smaller than the 8MB default stack size, and programs can use setrlimit to increase the stack farther. For GCC 6 let not impose any limit beyond non-negative/overflowing, and as you say we can do

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 03/23/2016 03:47 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Thanks for the comments. 2) It hardwires a rather arbitrarily restrictive limit of 64 KB on the size of the biggest C++ VLA. (This could stand to be improved and made more intelligent, and perhaps integrated with stack checking via

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

Thanks for the comments. 2) It hardwires a rather arbitrarily restrictive limit of 64 KB on the size of the biggest C++ VLA. (This could stand to be improved and made more intelligent, and perhaps integrated with stack checking via -fstack-limit, after the GCC 6 release.) The

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 03/06/2016 08:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: There are a few additional points to note about the patch: 1) It restores the std::bad_array_length exception from N3639, even though the class isn't specified by the C++ standard. At first I thought that introducing a different (private)

PING #2 [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

I'm looking for a review of the patch below. I noticed a piece of commented out code in there. Please assume that I will remove it before the final commit. As a heads up, I'm traveling this Thursday through Sunday and won't have access to email to answer questions or address comments until

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00441.html On 03/06/2016 06:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: GCC 4.9 had added support for C++ VLAs as specified in WG21 document N3639 expected to be included in C++ 14. However, WG21 ultimately decided not to include N3639 in C++ 14 and the G++

[PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

GCC 4.9 had added support for C++ VLAs as specified in WG21 document N3639 expected to be included in C++ 14. However, WG21 ultimately decided not to include N3639 in C++ 14 and the G++ support was partially removed in 5.1. Unfortunately, the removal rendered some safe albeit erroneous G++ 4.9