[Bug analyzer/110483] [14 Regression] Several gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-*.c tests FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110483
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> * out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c gets skipped on that machine due to
> { dg-require-effective-target lp64 }
> "check_cached_effective_target lp64: returning 0 for unix"
>
> Is there a config/cfarm machine you see the out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c failure
> on?
GCC on Solaris is bi-arch by default, so this should be a matter of
running the testsuite with both -m32 and -m64, as described in
install.texi (Passing options and running multiple testsuites).
Since properly quoting RUNTESTFLAGS can be trick, I usually use a
site.exp instead like
global target_list
case "$target_triplet" in {
{ "sparc-*-solaris2*" } {
set target_list { "unix{,-m64}" }
}
}
and point the DEJAGNU env variable to its path.
[Bug analyzer/110483] [14 Regression] Several gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-*.c tests FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110483
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks; let's keep using this PR for the stuff in comment #5.
I've been looking at these on gcc211 in the compile farm:
* I see out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c failing as you describe (the overflow in
test6 isn't reported with g++ for some reason; it is for gcc)
* out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c gets skipped on that machine due to
{ dg-require-effective-target lp64 }
"check_cached_effective_target lp64: returning 0 for unix"
Is there a config/cfarm machine you see the out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c failure
on?
[Bug analyzer/110483] [14 Regression] Several gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-*.c tests FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110483
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-29
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Thanks for the patch. Last night's bootstrap showed that all C tests PASS now.
However, two of the tests FAIL when compiled as C++:
FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c -std=c++98 (test for
warnings, line 25)
FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c -std=c++98 at line 20
(test for warnings, line 19)
FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-3.c -std=c++98 expected
multiline pattern lines 30-45
and same for -std=c++(14|17|20). When compiling manually, there's no output at
all.
There's also
FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c -std=c++98 (test for
warnings, line 12)
FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c -std=c++98 expected
multiline pattern lines 18-36
Here's the full output:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:
In function ‘void test7(std::size_t)’:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:41:47:
warning: allocated buffer size is not a multiple of the pointee's size
[CWE-131] [-Wanalyzer-allocation-size]
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:41:47:
note: (1) allocated ‘((size * 4) + 3)’ bytes and assigned to ‘int32_t*’ {aka
‘int*’} here; ‘sizeof (int32_t {aka int})’ is ‘4’
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:42:13:
warning: stack-based buffer overflow [CWE-121] [-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds]
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:41:47:
note: (1) capacity: ‘((size * 4) + 3)’ bytes
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:42:13:
note: (2) write of 4 bytes at offset ‘(size * 4)’ exceeds the buffer
┌───┐
│ write of ‘(int) 42’ │
└───┘
│ │
│ │
v v
┌──┐┌──┐
│ buffer allocated on stack at (1) ││after valid range │
└──┘└──┘
├┬─┤├┬─┤
│ │
╭───┴──╮ ╭─┴╮
│capacity: ‘size * 4 + 3’ bytes│ │overflow of 1 byte│
╰──╯ ╰──╯
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:
In function ‘char* test99(const char*, const char*)’:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:80:25:
warning: heap-based buffer overflow [CWE-122] [-Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds]
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:74:44:
note: (1) capacity: ‘(len_x + len_y)’ bytes
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:75:3:
note: (2) following ‘false’ branch (when ‘result’ is non-NULL)...
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:77:20:
note: (3) ...to here
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c:80:25:
note: (4) out-of-bounds write
I'm uncertain if this isn't another issue, though.
[Bug analyzer/110483] [14 Regression] Several gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-*.c tests FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110483 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Should be fixed by the above patch; closing. Please reopen if you still see these issues.
[Bug analyzer/110483] [14 Regression] Several gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-*.c tests FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110483 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:939439a90f234f9e70d30240bf5c227eebe2b43f commit r14-9199-g939439a90f234f9e70d30240bf5c227eebe2b43f Author: David Malcolm Date: Tue Feb 27 14:49:42 2024 -0500 analyzer: use correct format code for string literal indices [PR110483,PR111802] On e.g. gcc211 the use of "%li" with unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT led to this warning: ../../src/gcc/analyzer/access-diagram.cc: In member function âvoid ana::string_literal_spatial_item::add_column_for_byte(text_art::table&, const ana::bit_to_table_map&, text_art::style_manager&, ana::byte_offset_t, ana::byte_offset_t, int, int) constâ: ../../src/gcc/analyzer/access-diagram.cc:1909:40: warning: format â%liâ expects argument of type âlong intâ, but argument 3 has type âlong long unsigned intâ [-Wformat=] byte_idx_within_string.ulow ())); ^ and to all values being erroneously printed as "0". Fixed thusly. gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog: PR analyzer/110483 PR analyzer/111802 * access-diagram.cc (string_literal_spatial_item::add_column_for_byte): Use %wu for printing unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT. Signed-off-by: David Malcolm
