On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 17:57 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi David, > > On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 10:57 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > [CCing Mark in the hopes of insight from the valgrind side of > > things] > > Adding Julian to CC so he can correct me if I say something silly. > > > There is a false positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized- > > value on > > gcc.dg/analyzer/pr102692.c here: > > > > ‘fix_overlays_before’: events 1-3 > > | > > | 75 | while (tail > > | | ~~~~ > > | 76 | && (tem = make_lisp_ptr (tail, 5), > > | | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > | | | > > | | (1) following ‘false’ branch (when ‘tail’ is > > NULL)... > > | 77 | (end = marker_position (XOVERLAY (tem)- > > >end)) >= pos)) > > | | > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > |...... > > | 82 | if (!tail || end < prev || !tail->next) > > | | ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ > > | | | | > > | | | (3) use of uninitialized value > > ‘end’ here > > | | (2) ...to here > > | > > > > The issue is that inner || of the conditionals have been folded > > within the > > frontend from a chain of control flow: > > > > 5 │ if (tail == 0B) goto <D.1986>; else goto <D.1988>; > > 6 │ <D.1988>: > > 7 │ if (end < prev) goto <D.1986>; else goto <D.1989>; > > 8 │ <D.1989>: > > 9 │ _1 = tail->next; > > 10 │ if (_1 == 0B) goto <D.1986>; else goto <D.1987>; > > 11 │ <D.1986>: > > > > to an OR expr (and then to a bitwise-or by the gimplifier): > > > > 5 │ _1 = tail == 0B; > > 6 │ _2 = end < prev; > > 7 │ _3 = _1 | _2; > > 8 │ if (_3 != 0) goto <D.1986>; else goto <D.1988>; > > 9 │ <D.1988>: > > 10 │ _4 = tail->next; > > 11 │ if (_4 == 0B) goto <D.1986>; else goto <D.1987>; > > > > This happens for sufficiently simple conditionals in > > fold_truth_andor. > > In particular, the (end < prev) is short-circuited without > > optimization, > > but is evaluated with optimization, leading to the false positive. > > > > Given how early this folding occurs, it seems the simplest fix is > > to > > try to detect places where this optimization appears to have > > happened, > > and suppress uninit warnings within the statement that would have > > been short-circuited (and thus e.g. ignoring them when evaluating > > _2 > > above for the case where _1 is known to be true at the (_1 | _2) , > > and > > thus _2 being redundant). > > > > Attached is a patch that implements this. > > > > There are some more details in the patch, but I'm wondering if this > > is a > > known problem, and how e.g. valgrind copes with such code. My > > patch > > feels like something of a hack, but I'm not sure of any other way > > around > > it given that the conditional is folded directly within the > > frontend. > > As far as I know this is what valgrind memcheck also does with an > bitwise or. It knows that _3 is defined and true if either _1 or _2 > is > defined and true. Or more generically that the result bits of a > bitwise > or are defined for those bits that are both defined or where one is > defined and has the value 1.
Aha - thanks. I think the distinction here is that: * GCC's -fanalyzer complains about uninitialized values immediately when it sees one being fetched for use in any expression (replacing the value with a safe one to avoid further complaints), without considering how they are going to be used in the expression, whereas * it sounds like valgrind keeps track of uninitialized bits, propagates the "uninit-ness" of the bits, and complains at certain times when uninitialized bits are used in certain ways. Dave
