Message ID | 20191015171717.GB2922@redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | C++ PATCH for c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr | expand |
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:17:17PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > 2019-10-15 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> > > PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. > * typeck.c (maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local): Avoid > recursing on null initializer. > > * g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C: New test. > > diff --git gcc/cp/typeck.c gcc/cp/typeck.c > index 141d86f50c9..1825540016f 100644 > --- gcc/cp/typeck.c > +++ gcc/cp/typeck.c > @@ -9354,10 +9354,8 @@ maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (tree retval) > binding. */ > tree base = DECL_DECOMP_BASE (whats_returned); > if (TYPE_REF_P (TREE_TYPE (base))) > - { > - tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base); > + if (tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base)) > return maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (init); > - } Actually, seeing the dg-warning in the testcase, I think we shouldn't warn, for range-for it is just too hard to find out if it will be returning address of a local or not. &value in itself is not address of a local variable when the structured binding is a reference. Well, in the testcase as is it actually is (perhaps just in the reduced one and not original): const struct J & D.2293; const int name [value-expr: D.2293->name]; const int value [value-expr: D.2293->value]; ... struct reference D.2352; try { D.2352 = D<A::J*, int>::operator* (&__for_begin); D.2293 = &D.2352; but a small change to the testcase: template <typename _Iterator, typename> class D { public: - typename B<_Iterator>::reference operator*(); + typename B<_Iterator>::reference &operator*(); void operator++(); }; results in D.2293 = D<A::J*, int>::operator* (&__for_begin); and then it might very well not be address of a local variable. This isn't just about a false positive warning, when maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local returns true, then we actually return NULL pointer instead of the value user wanted. So, I think you want to add and do else return false; if init is NULL. > + for (const auto &[name, value] : members) > + return &value; // { dg-warning "address of local variable" } > + return nullptr; > + } > +}; > +int main() { > + A a; > + a.find(""); > +} Jakub
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 07:34:31PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:17:17PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > > 2019-10-15 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> > > > > PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. > > * typeck.c (maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local): Avoid > > recursing on null initializer. > > > > * g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C: New test. > > > > diff --git gcc/cp/typeck.c gcc/cp/typeck.c > > index 141d86f50c9..1825540016f 100644 > > --- gcc/cp/typeck.c > > +++ gcc/cp/typeck.c > > @@ -9354,10 +9354,8 @@ maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (tree retval) > > binding. */ > > tree base = DECL_DECOMP_BASE (whats_returned); > > if (TYPE_REF_P (TREE_TYPE (base))) > > - { > > - tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base); > > + if (tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base)) > > return maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (init); > > - } > > Actually, seeing the dg-warning in the testcase, I think we shouldn't warn, > for range-for it is just too hard to find out if it will be returning > address of a local or not. &value in itself is not address of a local > variable when the structured binding is a reference. > Well, in the testcase as is it actually is (perhaps just in the reduced > one and not original): > const struct J & D.2293; > const int name [value-expr: D.2293->name]; > const int value [value-expr: D.2293->value]; > ... > struct reference D.2352; > > try > { > D.2352 = D<A::J*, int>::operator* (&__for_begin); > D.2293 = &D.2352; > but a small change to the testcase: > template <typename _Iterator, typename> class D { > public: > - typename B<_Iterator>::reference operator*(); > + typename B<_Iterator>::reference &operator*(); > void operator++(); > }; > results in D.2293 = D<A::J*, int>::operator* (&__for_begin); > and then it might very well not be address of a local variable. > > This isn't just about a false positive warning, when > maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local returns true, then > we actually return NULL pointer instead of the value user wanted. > > So, I think you want to add and do else return false; > if init is NULL. That's an interesting point, thanks. Here's a patch with that return added. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk / 9? 2019-10-15 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. * typeck.c (maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local): Avoid recursing on null initializer and return false instead. * g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C: New test. diff --git gcc/cp/typeck.c gcc/cp/typeck.c index 141d86f50c9..90bd5bb9cdc 100644 --- gcc/cp/typeck.c +++ gcc/cp/typeck.c @@ -9355,8 +9355,10 @@ maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (tree retval) tree base = DECL_DECOMP_BASE (whats_returned); if (TYPE_REF_P (TREE_TYPE (base))) { - tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base); - return maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (init); + if (tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base)) + return maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (init); + else + return false; } } bool w = false; diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..13b40146379 --- /dev/null +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +// PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } } + +template <typename> struct B; +template <typename _Tp> struct B<_Tp *> { typedef _Tp reference; }; +struct C { + template <typename _Up> using rebind = _Up *; +}; +template <typename _Iterator, typename> class D { +public: + typename B<_Iterator>::reference operator*(); + void operator++(); +}; + +template <typename _Iterator, typename _Container> +bool operator!=(D<_Iterator, _Container>, D<_Iterator, _Container>); +template <typename _Tp> class F { +public: + typedef _Tp value_type; +}; + +template <typename _Alloc> struct G { + template <typename _Tp> struct H { using type = C::rebind<_Tp>; }; + using const_pointer = typename H<typename _Alloc::value_type>::type; +}; +template <typename _Tp, typename _Alloc = F<_Tp>> class I { + typedef D<typename G<_Alloc>::const_pointer, int> const_iterator; + +public: + const_iterator begin(); + const_iterator end(); +}; + +struct A { + struct J { + int name; + int value; + }; + I<J> members; + template <typename Key> const int *find(Key) { + for (const auto &[name, value] : members) + // See <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01107.html> + // for why we don't warn here. + return &value; // { dg-bogus "address of local variable" } + return nullptr; + } +}; +int main() { + A a; + a.find(""); +}
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 02:28:12PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C > @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ > +// PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. > +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } } > + > +template <typename> struct B; > +template <typename _Tp> struct B<_Tp *> { typedef _Tp reference; }; I've looked at the unreduced testcase and it seems to have template <typename _Tp> struct B<_Tp *> { typedef _Tp& reference; }; for this line instead. I'd think it would be better to change the testcase, so that it is well defined rather than undefined then. It is struct iterator_traits<_Tp*>, right? Otherwise, the patch LGTM, but I'll defer to Jason as the maintainer. Jakub
On 10/15/19 2:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 02:28:12PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: >> --- /dev/null >> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C >> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ >> +// PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. >> +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } } >> + >> +template <typename> struct B; >> +template <typename _Tp> struct B<_Tp *> { typedef _Tp reference; }; > > I've looked at the unreduced testcase and it seems to have > template <typename _Tp> struct B<_Tp *> { typedef _Tp& reference; }; > for this line instead. I'd think it would be better to change the testcase, > so that it is well defined rather than undefined then. > It is struct iterator_traits<_Tp*>, right? > > Otherwise, the patch LGTM, but I'll defer to Jason as the maintainer. OK with that change. Jason
diff --git gcc/cp/typeck.c gcc/cp/typeck.c index 141d86f50c9..1825540016f 100644 --- gcc/cp/typeck.c +++ gcc/cp/typeck.c @@ -9354,10 +9354,8 @@ maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (tree retval) binding. */ tree base = DECL_DECOMP_BASE (whats_returned); if (TYPE_REF_P (TREE_TYPE (base))) - { - tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base); + if (tree init = DECL_INITIAL (base)) return maybe_warn_about_returning_address_of_local (init); - } } bool w = false; auto_diagnostic_group d; diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..c41c0d8cbbf --- /dev/null +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp50.C @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +// PR c++/92106 - ICE with structured bindings and -Wreturn-local-addr. +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } } + +template <typename> struct B; +template <typename _Tp> struct B<_Tp *> { typedef _Tp reference; }; +struct C { + template <typename _Up> using rebind = _Up *; +}; +template <typename _Iterator, typename> class D { +public: + typename B<_Iterator>::reference operator*(); + void operator++(); +}; + +template <typename _Iterator, typename _Container> +bool operator!=(D<_Iterator, _Container>, D<_Iterator, _Container>); +template <typename _Tp> class F { +public: + typedef _Tp value_type; +}; + +template <typename _Alloc> struct G { + template <typename _Tp> struct H { using type = C::rebind<_Tp>; }; + using const_pointer = typename H<typename _Alloc::value_type>::type; +}; +template <typename _Tp, typename _Alloc = F<_Tp>> class I { + typedef D<typename G<_Alloc>::const_pointer, int> const_iterator; + +public: + const_iterator begin(); + const_iterator end(); +}; + +struct A { + struct J { + int name; + int value; + }; + I<J> members; + template <typename Key> const int *find(Key) { + for (const auto &[name, value] : members) + return &value; // { dg-warning "address of local variable" } + return nullptr; + } +}; +int main() { + A a; + a.find(""); +}