Hi all,
second version for this patch.
Given the suggestion for the bit-field one I've tried to improve also
here the error message.
I've added a simple testcase as requested, here I'm trying to do
*void=int+int.
This without checking would normally crash verifying gimple.
More complex cases can be cause of crashes having the
result type structures etc...

Tested with make check-jit
OK for trunk?

Bests
  Andrea

2019-06-09  Andrea Corallo  andrea.cora...@arm.com

* libgccjit.c (gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op): Check result_type to be a
numeric type.


2019-06-20  Andrea Corallo andrea.cora...@arm.com

* jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c:
New testcase.
diff --git a/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c b/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
index e4f17f8..3507d0b 100644
--- a/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
+++ b/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
@@ -1345,6 +1345,12 @@ gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op (gcc_jit_context *ctxt,
     a->get_type ()->get_debug_string (),
     b->get_debug_string (),
     b->get_type ()->get_debug_string ());
+  RETURN_NULL_IF_FAIL_PRINTF4 (
+    result_type->is_numeric (), ctxt, loc,
+    "gcc_jit_binary_op %i with operands a: %s b: %s "
+    "has non numeric result_type: %s",
+    op, a->get_debug_string (), b->get_debug_string (),
+    result_type->get_debug_string ());
 
   return (gcc_jit_rvalue *)ctxt->new_binary_op (loc, op, result_type, a, b);
 }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1addc67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+#include "libgccjit.h"
+
+#include "harness.h"
+
+/* Try to create a binary operator with invalid result type.  */
+
+void
+create_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, void *user_data)
+{
+  gcc_jit_type *int_type =
+    gcc_jit_context_get_type (ctxt, GCC_JIT_TYPE_INT);
+  gcc_jit_type *void_ptr_type =
+    gcc_jit_context_get_type (ctxt, GCC_JIT_TYPE_VOID_PTR);
+
+  gcc_jit_function *func =
+    gcc_jit_context_new_function (ctxt, NULL,
+				  GCC_JIT_FUNCTION_EXPORTED,
+				  void_ptr_type,
+				  "foo_func",
+				  0, NULL, 0);
+  gcc_jit_block *block = gcc_jit_function_new_block (func, NULL);
+  gcc_jit_block_end_with_return (
+    block,
+    NULL,
+    gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op (
+      ctxt,
+      NULL,
+      GCC_JIT_BINARY_OP_MINUS,
+      void_ptr_type,
+      gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int (ctxt,
+					   int_type,
+					   1),
+      gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int (ctxt,
+					   int_type,
+					   2)));
+
+}
+
+void
+verify_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, gcc_jit_result *result)
+{
+  CHECK_VALUE (result, NULL);
+
+  /* Verify that the correct error message was emitted.	 */
+  CHECK_STRING_VALUE (gcc_jit_context_get_first_error (ctxt),
+		      "gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op: gcc_jit_binary_op 1 with"
+		      " operands a: (int)1 b: (int)2 has non numeric "
+		      "result_type: void *");
+}

Reply via email to