On 16 Feb 17:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:56:45PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 16:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > > > This patch restricts usage of Pointer Bounds Checker with Sanitizer.
> > > > OK for trunk?
> > >
> > > There are many sanitizers, and for most of them I don't see why they would
> > > be in any conflict with -mmpx, it is just -fsanitize=address and
> > > -fsanitize=kernel-address.
> > > So perhaps test instead if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_ADDRESS) != 0, and
> > > better clear the flag_pointer_bounds after issuing the error, error () is
> > > not a fatal function, so you need something sensible for error-recovery.
> > >
> > > Jakub
> >
> > I don't know all sanitizers in details. Code generated by some of them may
> > be incorrect from checker point of view. Thus I just wanted to disable
> > unexplored and untested combinations.
>
> Shouldn't be that hard to write a testcase and test it.
>
> Most of the sanitizers just add code like
> if (some_condition)
> __ubsan_handle_... ();
> where from the POV of the program the __ubsan_* function reports or might
> report some problem, and optionally abort the program.
> That some_condition can be a check of the pointer value, shift count,
> divisor check, etc.
>
> Jakub
OK. With no tricky memory references this should be safe. Here is a patch to
filter off Adress Sanitizer only.
Thanks for review!
Ilya
--
gcc/
2015-02-16 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
PR target/65044
* toplev.c (process_options): Restrict Pointer Bounds Checker
usage with Address Sanitizer.
gcc/testsuite/
2015-02-16 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
PR target/65044
* gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c: New.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4f318d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* { dg-error "-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with Address Sanitizer"
} */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target mpx } */
+/* { dg-options "-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx -fsanitize=address" } */
+
+extern int x[];
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+ x[0] = 0;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/toplev.c b/gcc/toplev.c
index 99cf180..70eb6b6 100644
--- a/gcc/toplev.c
+++ b/gcc/toplev.c
@@ -1376,6 +1376,11 @@ process_options (void)
{
if (targetm.chkp_bound_mode () == VOIDmode)
error ("-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported for this target");
+
+ if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_ADDRESS)
+ error ("-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with Address
Sanitizer");
+
+ flag_check_pointer_bounds = 0;
}
/* One region RA really helps to decrease the code size. */
