On 18 Oct 2024, at 10:55, Sam James wrote:
> Simon Martin <si...@nasilyan.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2024, at 22:06, Sam James wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Martin <si...@nasilyan.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We ICE upon the following invalid code because we end up calling
>>>> finalize_nrv_r with a RETURN_EXPR with no operand.
>>>>
>>>> === cut here ===
>>>> struct X {
>>>> ~X();
>>>> };
>>>> X test(bool b) {
>>>> {
>>>> X x;
>>>> return x;
>>>> }
>>>> if (!(b)) return;
>>>> }
>>>> === cut here ===
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes this by simply returning error_mark_node when
>>>> detecting
>>>> a void return in a function returning non-void.
>>>>
>>>> Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>>>
>>>> PR c++/117099
>>>>
>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * typeck.cc (check_return_expr): Return error_mark_node upon
>>>> void return for function returning non-void.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * g++.dg/parse/crash77.C: New test.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> gcc/cp/typeck.cc | 1 +
>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/crash77.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/crash77.C
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck.cc b/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
>>>> index 71d879abef1..22a6ec9a185 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
>>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.cc
>>>> @@ -11238,6 +11238,7 @@ check_return_expr (tree retval, bool
>>>> *no_warning, bool *dangling)
>>>> RETURN_EXPR to avoid control reaches end of non-void function
>>>> warnings in tree-cfg.cc. */
>>>> *no_warning = true;
>>>> + return error_mark_node;
>>>> }
>>>> /* Check for a return statement with a value in a function that
>>>> isn't supposed to return a value. */
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/crash77.C
>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/crash77.C
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 00000000000..d3f0ae6a877
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/crash77.C
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
>>>> +// PR c++/117099
>>>> +// { dg-compile }
>>>
>>> dg-do compile
>>>
>> Aarg, of course, thanks for spotting this! Fixed in the attached
>> version.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +struct X {
>>>> + ~X();
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +X test(bool b) {
>>>> + {
>>>> + X x;
>>>> + return x;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (!(b)) return; // { dg-error "return-statement with no value" }
>>>> +}
>>>> --
>>>> 2.44.0
>>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, the line-endings on this seem a bit odd. Did you use
>>> git-send-email?
>> I did use git-send-email indeed. What oddities do you see with line
>> endings?
>> cat -A over the patch file looks good.
>>
>
> Weird -- if I open your original email in mu4e, I see a bunch of ^M at
> the end of the lines.
Strange. FWIW I’m generating and sending the patches from a MacOS box,
and there might be some weirdness coming from that. I’ll check and try
to fix.
Simon
