Ping...
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:28 AM hstk30 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 12:28 AM Andrew Pinski > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 10:43 AM Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The __attribute__((__copy__)) functionality was crashing when > > > > copying sanitizer-related attributes because these attributes > > > > violated the standard GCC attribute infrastructure by storing > > > > INTEGER_CST values directly instead of wrapping them in TREE_LIST like > > > > all other attributes. > > > > > > > > Wrap sanitizer attributes INTEGER_CST values in TREE_LIST structures > > > > to follow the same pattern as other attributes. This eliminates the > > > > copy_list() crashes when copying sanitizer attributes: > > > > > > > > test.c:4:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree that > > > > contains ‘common’ structure, have ‘integer_cst’ in copy_list, at > > > > tree.cc:1427 > > > > 4 | __attribute__((__copy__(__tanh))); > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > 0x859d06 tree_contains_struct_check_failed(tree_node const*, > > > > tree_node_structure_enum, char const*, int, char const*) > > > > ../../gcc/gcc/tree.cc:9126 > > > > 0x860f78 contains_struct_check(tree_node*, tree_node_structure_enum, > > > > char const*, int, char const*) > > > > ../../gcc/gcc/tree.h:3748 > > > > 0x860f78 copy_list(tree_node*) > > > > ../../gcc/gcc/tree.cc:1427 > > > > 0xa755a5 handle_copy_attribute > > > > ../../gcc/gcc/c-family/c-attribs.cc:3077 > > > > > > > > > I am not a fan of the wrapping because it increases the memory usage > > > slightly but it is required since the rest of the attributes code > > > requires TREE_LIST here. > > > > > > So Ok. I will do final testing either Monday or Tuesday and push it > > > after that. > > > > So this causes some ICEs in the testsuite: > > FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/inline-kernel.c -O0 (internal compiler > > error: in tree_to_sanitize_code_type, at tree.cc:6704) > > > > 0xa4376b fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*) > > > > /home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-new/gcc/gcc/diagnostics/context.cc:1812 > > 0x92f581 tree_to_sanitize_code_type(tree_node const*) > > /home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-new/gcc/gcc/tree.cc:6704 > > 0x92f581 tree_to_sanitize_code_type(tree_node const*) > > /home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-new/gcc/gcc/tree.cc:6702 > > 0x128bea2 print_no_sanitize_attr_value > > /home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-new/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.cc:8223 > > 0x128bea2 dump_function_to_file(tree_node*, _IO_FILE*, dump_flag) > > /home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-new/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.cc:8276 > > > > > > Looks like you forgot to update dump_function_to_file too. > > Can you double check all of the locations that use > > tree_to_sanitize_code_type to make sure they all have been fixed? > > Fix this fail by below patch: > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.cc b/gcc/tree-cfg.cc > index 66ea54f8b85..808b8000603 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.cc > +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.cc > @@ -8220,7 +8220,10 @@ dump_default_def (FILE *file, tree def, int spc, > dump_flags_t flags) > static void > print_no_sanitize_attr_value (FILE *file, tree value) > { > - sanitize_code_type flags = tree_to_sanitize_code_type (value); > + /* Extract the INTEGER_CST from the TREE_LIST wrapper. */ > + gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (value) == TREE_LIST); > + sanitize_code_type flags = tree_to_sanitize_code_type (TREE_VALUE (value)); > + > bool first = true; > for (int i = 0; sanitizer_opts[i].name != NULL; ++i) > { > > > I have checked the patch which first introduces the tree_to_sanitize_code_type > (https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/) > > > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew
