> Am 08.12.2024 um 18:11 schrieb Simon Martin <si...@nasilyan.com>:
>
> On 8 Dec 2024, at 11:10, Simon Martin wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>> On 8 Dec 2024, at 10:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 9:29 PM Simon Martin <si...@nasilyan.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The following valid code triggers an ICE with -fsanitize=address
>>>>
>>>> === cut here ===
>>>> void l() {
>>>> auto const ints = {0,1,2,3,4,5};
>>>> for (auto i : { 3 } ) {
>>>> __builtin_printf("%d ", i);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> === cut here ===
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that honor_protect_cleanup_actions does not expect the
>>
>>>> cleanup sequence of a GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY to be empty. It is however
>>>> the
>>>> case here since r14-8681-gceb242f5302027, because lower_stmt removes
>>>> the
>>>> only statement in the sequence: a ASAN_MARK statement for the array
>>>> that
>>>> backs the initializer_list).
>>>>
>>>> This patch simply checks that the finally block is not 0 before
>>>> accessing it in honor_protect_cleanup_actions.
>>>>
>>>> Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk and gcc-14?
>>>>
>>>> PR c++/117845
>>>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * tree-eh.cc (honor_protect_cleanup_actions): Support empty
>>>> finally sequences.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * g++.dg/asan/pr117845-2.C: New test.
>>>> * g++.dg/asan/pr117845.C: New test.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845-2.C | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845.C | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> gcc/tree-eh.cc | 3 ++-
>>>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845-2.C
>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845.C
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845-2.C
>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845-2.C
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 00000000000..c0556397009
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845-2.C
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>>>> +// PR c++/117845 - Actually valid variant
>>>> +// { dg-do "compile" }
>>>> +// { dg-options "-fsanitize=address" }
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <initializer_list>
>>>> +
>>>> +void l() {
>>>> + auto const ints = {0,1,2,3,4,5};
>>>> + for (auto i : { 3 } ) {
>>>> + __builtin_printf("%d ", i);
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845.C
>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845.C
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 00000000000..d90d351e270
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/pr117845.C
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>>>> +// PR c++/117845 - Initially reported case.
>>>> +// { dg-do "compile" }
>>>> +// { dg-options "-fsanitize=address" }
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <initializer_list>
>>>> +
>>>> +void l() {
>>>> + auto const ints = {0,1,2,3,4,5};
>>>> + for (int i : ints | h) { // { dg-error "was not declared" }
>>>> + __builtin_printf("%d ", i);
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-eh.cc b/gcc/tree-eh.cc
>>>> index 769785fad2b..dc920de9b38 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/tree-eh.cc
>>>> +++ b/gcc/tree-eh.cc
>>>> @@ -1026,7 +1026,8 @@ honor_protect_cleanup_actions (struct leh_state
>>>> *outer_state,
>>>> MUST_NOT_THROW filter. */
>>>> gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_start (finally);
>>>> gimple *x = gsi_stmt (gsi);
>>>> - if (gimple_code (x) == GIMPLE_TRY
>>>> + if (x
>>>
>>> style-wise you should check for gsi_end_p (gsi) before
>>> calling gsi_stmt on the iterator. Implementation-wise
>>> your patch has the same effect, of course.
>>>
>>> Can you still refactor it this way?
>> Sure, here’s the updated version that I’m currently testing. Ok for
>> trunk and gcc-14 assuming the testing comes back all green?
> FYI the testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu of the updated patch was successful.
Ok
Richard
> Simon
>
