| Message ID | 20121109124218.05b22661@spoyarek |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 11/09/2012 12:12 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Hi, > > I found that some test cases access arrays beyond their bounds. I > looked up their originating bugzillas and found that the test > cases for pr22506 and pr34005 were likely to be typos since the > original test cases in the report do not have this problem. For > pr31227 however, I am inclined to think that the test case is > incorrect. I am not sure what the test case verifies since the array > accesses are obviously beyond bounds. > > Regards, > Siddhesh > > testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2012-11-09 Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com> > > * gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c (bar): Keep array access within > bounds for ABDAY, DAY, ABMON, MON, AM_PM. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr22506.c (foo): Reduce loop iterations to within > array bounds. > * gcc.dg/vect/pr34005.c (XdmcpUnwrap): Likewise. For 31227 it's checking that an address formed by first computing an address outside the array, then adding an offset with the end result pointing at a valid location inside the array doesn't generate an incorrect warning. This style of address computation can sometimes be advantageous for the loop optimizers to generate (my recollection is it's invalid C/C++ at the source level). The off-by-one aspects of 31227 ought to be corrected. Ok for the trunk, jeff
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:57:44 -0700, Jeff wrote: > The off-by-one aspects of 31227 ought to be corrected. > > Ok for the trunk, I don't have write access (not sure if I qualify for it yet with just a couple of trivial patches so far) so I need someone to commit for me. Thanks, Siddhesh
On 11/09/2012 12:14 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:57:44 -0700, Jeff wrote: >> The off-by-one aspects of 31227 ought to be corrected. >> >> Ok for the trunk, > > I don't have write access (not sure if I qualify for it yet with just a > couple of trivial patches so far) so I need someone to commit for me. OK. I took care of committing for you. jeff
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c index 19cdb8e..773f463 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c @@ -34,31 +34,31 @@ bar (struct S *time) iov[1].iov_base = (void *) "def"; iov[1].iov_len = 3; - for (cnt = 0; cnt <= 7; ++cnt) + for (cnt = 0; cnt < 7; ++cnt) { iov[2 + cnt].iov_base = (void *) (time->abday[cnt] ?: ""); iov[2 + cnt].iov_len = strlen (iov[2 + cnt].iov_base) + 1; } - for (; cnt <= 14; ++cnt) + for (; cnt < 14; ++cnt) { iov[2 + cnt].iov_base = (void *) (time->day[cnt - 7] ?: ""); iov[2 + cnt].iov_len = strlen (iov[2 + cnt].iov_base) + 1; } - for (; cnt <= 26; ++cnt) + for (; cnt < 26; ++cnt) { iov[2 + cnt].iov_base = (void *) (time->abmon[cnt - 14] ?: ""); iov[2 + cnt].iov_len = strlen (iov[2 + cnt].iov_base) + 1; } - for (; cnt <= 38; ++cnt) + for (; cnt < 38; ++cnt) { iov[2 + cnt].iov_base = (void *) (time->mon[cnt - 26] ?: ""); iov[2 + cnt].iov_len = strlen (iov[2 + cnt].iov_base) + 1; } - for (; cnt <= 40; ++cnt) + for (; cnt < 40; ++cnt) { iov[2 + cnt].iov_base = (void *) (time->am_pm[cnt - 38] ?: ""); iov[2 + cnt].iov_len = strlen (iov[2 + cnt].iov_base) + 1; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr22506.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr22506.c index 5a2d749..a618e32 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr22506.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr22506.c @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ void foo() { int i; - for (i=0; i<5; ++i) x[i]=0; - for (i=0; i<4; ++i) ; + for (i=0; i<3; ++i) x[i]=0; + for (i=0; i<2; ++i) ; } /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr34005.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr34005.c index 813f950..86c3832 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr34005.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr34005.c @@ -8,7 +8,8 @@ void XdmcpUnwrap (unsigned char *output, int k) int i; unsigned char blocks[2][8]; k = (k == 0) ? 1 : 0; - for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) + + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) output[i] = blocks[k][i]; }