[Bug c++/83058] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in warn_placement_new_too_small, at cp/init.c:2666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed in r255182.
[Bug c++/83058] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in warn_placement_new_too_small, at cp/init.c:2666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Nov 28 00:02:17 2017 New Revision: 255182 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255182=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83058 - ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in warn_placement_new_too_small gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/83058 * init.c (warn_placement_new_too_small): Use offset_int instead of HOST_WIDE_INT. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/83058 * g++.dg/warn/Wplacement-new-size-5.C: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wplacement-new-size-5.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/init.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/83058] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in warn_placement_new_too_small, at cp/init.c:2666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02324.html
[Bug c++/83058] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in warn_placement_new_too_small, at cp/init.c:2666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|diagnostic |ice-on-valid-code Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2017-11-22 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Confirming. It's amazing how error-prone this all is...
[Bug c++/83058] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on C++ code with negative array index: in warn_placement_new_too_small, at cp/init.c:2666
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|8.0 |6.5 Summary|[8 Regression] ICE on C++ |[6/7/8 Regression] ICE on |code with negative array|C++ code with negative |index: in |array index: in |warn_placement_new_too_smal |warn_placement_new_too_smal |l, at cp/init.c:2666|l, at cp/init.c:2666 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Not so recent regression, started with r229827. There are multiple bugs in that code: if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (adj)) should really be a test for TREE_CODE (adj) == INTEGER_CST, tree_to_shwi is going to ICE on anything else. const_tree adj = TREE_OPERAND (oper, 1); if (!use_obj_size && CONSTANT_CLASS_P (adj)) adjust += tree_to_shwi (adj); similarly, plus there is no checking of addition overflows. I think it might be better to turn adjust into an offset_int in which you compute everything and then check if it can actually be used (or force use_obj_size otherwise). gcc_checking_assert (0 <= adjust); this is where we ICE. The comparison operand order is incorrect too. if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (size)) Again, wrong check. Should be probably if (tree_fits_uhwi_p (size)). bytes_need = tree_to_uhwi (size); else if (nelts && CONSTANT_CLASS_P (nelts)) bytes_need = tree_to_uhwi (nelts) * tree_to_uhwi (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type)); The above is also misformatted, should be bytes_need = tree_to_uhwi (nelts) * tree_to_uhwi (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type)); or bytes_need = (tree_to_uhwi (nelts) * tree_to_uhwi (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type))); or bytes_need = tree_to_uhwi (nelts) * tree_to_uhwi (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type))); What about the case when TYPE_SIZE_UNIT doesn't fit into uhwi? That will ICE too. else if (tree_fits_uhwi_p (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type))) bytes_need = tree_to_uhwi (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (type));
