On 3/25/25 1:18 PM, Simon Martin wrote:
We've been miscompiling the following since r0-51314-gd6b4ea8592e338 (I
did not go compile something that old, and identified this change via
git blame, so might be wrong)
=== cut here ===
struct Foo { int x; };
Foo& get (Foo &v) { return v; }
void bar () {
Foo v; v.x = 1;
(true ? get (v) : get (v)).*(&Foo::x) = 2;
// v.x still equals 1 here...
}
=== cut here ===
The problem lies in build_m_component_ref, that computes the address of
the COND_EXPR using build_address to build the representation of
(true ? get (v) : get (v)).*(&Foo::x);
and gets something like
&(true ? get (v) : get (v)) // #1
instead of
(true ? &get (v) : &get (v)) // #2
and the write does not go where want it to, hence the miscompile.
This patch replaces the call to build_address by a call to
cp_build_addr_expr, which gives #2, that is properly handled.
Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? And for active
branches after 2-3 weeks since it's a nasty one (albeit very old)?
OK, and yes.
PR c++/114525
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* typeck2.cc (build_m_component_ref): Call cp_build_addr_expr
instead of build_address.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/parse/pr114525.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/typeck2.cc | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr114525.C | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr114525.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
index 1adc05aa86d..45edd180173 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc
@@ -2387,7 +2387,7 @@ build_m_component_ref (tree datum, tree component,
tsubst_flags_t complain)
(cp_type_quals (type)
| cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (datum))));
- datum = build_address (datum);
+ datum = cp_build_addr_expr (datum, complain);
/* Convert object to the correct base. */
if (binfo)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr114525.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr114525.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..326985eed50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr114525.C
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+/* PR c++/114525 */
+/* { dg-do run } */
+
+struct Foo {
+ int x;
+};
+
+Foo& get (Foo& v) {
+ return v;
+}
+
+int main () {
+ bool cond = true;
+
+ /* Testcase from PR; v.x would wrongly remain equal to 1. */
+ Foo v_ko;
+ v_ko.x = 1;
+ (cond ? get (v_ko) : get (v_ko)).*(&Foo::x) = 2;
+ if (v_ko.x != 2)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ /* Those would already work, i.e. x be changed to 2. */
+ Foo v_ok_1;
+ v_ok_1.x = 1;
+ (cond ? get (v_ok_1) : get (v_ok_1)).x = 2;
+ if (v_ok_1.x != 2)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ Foo v_ok_2;
+ v_ok_2.x = 1;
+ get (v_ok_2).*(&Foo::x) = 2;
+ if (v_ok_2.x != 2)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+
+ return 0;
+}
