https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 107698 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed on master. Do we want to do a backport?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5dd4d2e93e3de60d4ef1068b6dfd06b6b9fff16e
commit r13-4354-g5dd4d2e93e3de60d4ef1068b6dfd06b6b9fff16e
Author: Yuri Gribov
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 107806 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #17 from Yuri Gribov ---
Fix has been approved
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606858.html), I hope
to merge it soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 107746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Li Shaohua from comment #14)
> Hello, is this patch going to be pushed to the trunk?
Not yet. The patch is under review process.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #14 from Li Shaohua ---
Hello, is this patch going to be pushed to the trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #13 from Yuri Gribov ---
Posted to gcc-patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601041.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53458|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #11 from Yuri Gribov ---
Created attachment 53493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53493=edit
Updated patch
Here is an updated patch which passes bootstrap-asan (I haven't run the
testsuite yet).
It results in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #10 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 53458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53458=edit
Very draft patch
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Perhaps either a quick check that for base ptrs that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If maybe_get_single_definition returns a SSA_NAME or is_gimple_min_invariant,
then it is ok as is and doesn't need anything new.
Otherwise I think we need to ask the alias oracle.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #8 from Yuri Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
I've started work on this but I'll probly only have enough time to cook a patch
on weekend.
> Perhaps either a quick check that for base ptrs that live in memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps either a quick check that for base ptrs that live in memory gimple_vuse
is the same for both statements or if not, do walk_aliased_vdefs with low
constant limit?
We'd want to stop if we reach the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or perhaps could we ask the alias oracle in can_remove_asan_check
for the *base_checks case if base_addr lives in memory whether base_addr could
change in between the stmt in the vector and current stmt,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looks like a bug in the sanopt pass.
For -O2, we have before sanopt in main:
b.0_1 = b;
e.2_3 = e;
c.5_4 = c;
.ASAN_CHECK (7, c.5_4, 8, 8);
*c.5_4 = e.2_3;
b.7_5 = b;
.ASAN_CHECK (7, b.7_5, 4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-08-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
With -fno-toplevel-reorder, it can be detected.
I can't figure out why there is a difference really.
22 matches
Mail list logo
