On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:47:29AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> That looks much better, I wonder if it would reproduce even if the result
> is saved somewhere (either E *e; field in S with swapping of the two class
> definitions, or global var or static data member static E *e; of S),
> otherwise the new just allocates and throws away. Ok with that change, or
> if it makes the problem no longer reproduceable, ok as is.
It is reproduceable with all three variants. I'll commit this one shortly.
> Note, once the LTO issues with internal functions are fixed, we need
> to grep for all those dg-skip-if and remove them.
Yeah, definitely. I'm keeping it in mind.
2013-11-25 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
testsuite/
* g++.dg/ubsan/pr59250.C: New test.
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr59250.C.mp3 2013-11-25 10:43:24.797315678
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr59250.C 2013-11-25 11:55:37.000000000
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// PR sanitizer/59250
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-fsanitize=undefined" }
+// { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-flto" } { "" } }
+
+struct E {
+ int i;
+};
+
+struct S {
+ const char *s;
+ S (const char *);
+ static E *e;
+};
+
+S::S (const char *) : s (0)
+{
+ e = new E ();
+}
Marek
