On 09/19/16 23:27, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/19/2016 03:08 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> >>> Would it work to break this up into distinct tests, exit()-ing from each >>> function rather than returning back to main? >>> >> >> Yes. I think how this test is designed, each function must be inlined, >> or it will fail anyway. It was for instance impossible to pass the >> ubsan test, if -fno-inline was used as RUNTESTFLAGS. > Presumably the dg-skip-if is ensuring that we're only testing with -O2 > turned on. >> >> Therefore it works as well, if main avoids to return and calls >> exit(0) instead, with a specific comment of course. >> >> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01985.html > That works for me. > > jeff
OK, thanks. Then I will commit this on trunk and active branches. Bernd.
2016-09-22 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> Tom de Vries <t...@codesourcery.com> PR testsuite/77411 * c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c: Call __builtin_exit in C++. Index: c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c =================================================================== --- c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c (Revision 240355) +++ c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -93,5 +93,9 @@ main (void) #endif f4 (12); f5 (12); +#ifdef __cplusplus + /* Stack may be smashed by f2/f3 above. */ + __builtin_exit (0); +#endif return 0; }
