Hi all,
second version for this patch.
Given the suggestion for the bit-field one I've tried to improve also
here the error message.
I've added a simple testcase as requested, here I'm trying to do
*void=int+int.
This without checking would normally crash verifying gimple.
More complex cases can be cause of crashes having the
result type structures etc...
Tested with make check-jit
OK for trunk?
Bests
Andrea
2019-06-09 Andrea Corallo [email protected]
* libgccjit.c (gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op): Check result_type to be a
numeric type.
2019-06-20 Andrea Corallo [email protected]
* jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c:
New testcase.
diff --git a/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c b/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
index e4f17f8..3507d0b 100644
--- a/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
+++ b/gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
@@ -1345,6 +1345,12 @@ gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op (gcc_jit_context *ctxt,
a->get_type ()->get_debug_string (),
b->get_debug_string (),
b->get_type ()->get_debug_string ());
+ RETURN_NULL_IF_FAIL_PRINTF4 (
+ result_type->is_numeric (), ctxt, loc,
+ "gcc_jit_binary_op %i with operands a: %s b: %s "
+ "has non numeric result_type: %s",
+ op, a->get_debug_string (), b->get_debug_string (),
+ result_type->get_debug_string ());
return (gcc_jit_rvalue *)ctxt->new_binary_op (loc, op, result_type, a, b);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1addc67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/test-error-gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op-bad-res-type.c
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+#include "libgccjit.h"
+
+#include "harness.h"
+
+/* Try to create a binary operator with invalid result type. */
+
+void
+create_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, void *user_data)
+{
+ gcc_jit_type *int_type =
+ gcc_jit_context_get_type (ctxt, GCC_JIT_TYPE_INT);
+ gcc_jit_type *void_ptr_type =
+ gcc_jit_context_get_type (ctxt, GCC_JIT_TYPE_VOID_PTR);
+
+ gcc_jit_function *func =
+ gcc_jit_context_new_function (ctxt, NULL,
+ GCC_JIT_FUNCTION_EXPORTED,
+ void_ptr_type,
+ "foo_func",
+ 0, NULL, 0);
+ gcc_jit_block *block = gcc_jit_function_new_block (func, NULL);
+ gcc_jit_block_end_with_return (
+ block,
+ NULL,
+ gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op (
+ ctxt,
+ NULL,
+ GCC_JIT_BINARY_OP_MINUS,
+ void_ptr_type,
+ gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int (ctxt,
+ int_type,
+ 1),
+ gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_int (ctxt,
+ int_type,
+ 2)));
+
+}
+
+void
+verify_code (gcc_jit_context *ctxt, gcc_jit_result *result)
+{
+ CHECK_VALUE (result, NULL);
+
+ /* Verify that the correct error message was emitted. */
+ CHECK_STRING_VALUE (gcc_jit_context_get_first_error (ctxt),
+ "gcc_jit_context_new_binary_op: gcc_jit_binary_op 1 with"
+ " operands a: (int)1 b: (int)2 has non numeric "
+ "result_type: void *");
+}
