On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/04/14 09:40, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> This should fix ICE on insane alignment. Normally, check_user_alignment
>> detects e.g. alignment 1 << 32, but not 1 << 28. However, record_align
>> is in bits, so it's actually 8 * (1 << 28) and that's greater than
>> INT_MAX. This patch rejects such code.
>>
>> In the middle hunk, we should give up when an error occurs, we don't
>> want to call finalize_type_size in that case -- we'd ICE in there.
>>
>> Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
>>
>> 2014-03-04 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
>>
>> PR middle-end/60226
>> * stor-layout.c (layout_type): Return if alignment of array elements
>> is greater than element size. Error out if requested alignment is too
>> large.
>> cp/
>> * class.c (layout_class_type): Error out if requested alignment is too
>> large.
>> testsuite/
>> * c-c++-common/pr60226.c: New test.
> Is this still applicable after the wide-int changes? I haven't looked
> closely.
I glanced at it:
(gdb) p/x TYPE_ALIGN (type)
$1 = 2147483648
(gdb) p/x TYPE_ALIGN (type)
$2 = 0x80000000
The callee is int, the caller uses unsigned int. The assert I see is because
the routines are not type correct:
=> TYPE_SIZE (type) = round_up (TYPE_SIZE (type), TYPE_ALIGN (type));
(gdb) ptype TYPE_ALIGN (type)
type = unsigned int
tree
round_up_loc (location_t loc, tree value, int divisor)
{
tree div = NULL_TREE;
=>gcc_assert (divisor > 0);
Would be nice if the routine was type correct (wrt unsigned).
