https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101502
Bug ID: 101502
Summary: Inconsistent behavior in maybe_record_node()
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: fxue at os dot amperecomputing.com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For code snippet in maybe_record_node(), behavior might be inconsistent when
SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE is turned on. Suppose we are adding two functions
(method_fn/__cxa_pure_virtual), content of nodes is order-sensitive.
o. method_fn, __cxa_pure_virtual -> nodes: [ method_fn ]
o. __cxa_pure_virtual, method_fn -> nodes: [ __cxa_pure_virtual, method_fn ]
BTW: assertion on target_node->real_symbol_p() is redundant, since the
condition is contained.
else if (target_node != NULL
&& (TREE_PUBLIC (target)
|| DECL_EXTERNAL (target)
|| target_node->definition)
&& target_node->real_symbol_p ())
{
gcc_assert (!target_node->inlined_to);
gcc_assert (target_node->real_symbol_p ());
/* When sanitizing, do not assume that __cxa_pure_virtual is not called
by valid program. */
if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE)
;
/* Only add pure virtual if it is the only possible target. This way
we will preserve the diagnostics about pure virtual called in many
cases without disabling optimization in other. */
else if (pure_virtual)
{
if (nodes.length ())
return;
}
/* If we found a real target, take away cxa_pure_virtual. */
else if (!pure_virtual && nodes.length () == 1
&& is_cxa_pure_virtual_p (nodes[0]->decl))
nodes.pop ();
if (pure_virtual && nodes.length ())
return;
if (!inserted->add (target))
{
cached_polymorphic_call_targets->add (target_node);
nodes.safe_push (target_node);
}
}
