On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 13:21:10 -0600
Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-uninit.c
> @@ -228,9 +228,26 @@ check_defs (ao_ref *ref, tree vdef, void *data_)
> gimple *def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (vdef);
>
> /* The ASAN_MARK intrinsic doesn't modify the variable. */
> - if (is_gimple_call (def_stmt)
> - && gimple_call_internal_p (def_stmt, IFN_ASAN_MARK))
> - return false;
> + if (is_gimple_call (def_stmt))
> + {
> + if (gimple_call_internal_p (def_stmt)
> + && gimple_call_internal_fn (def_stmt) == IFN_ASAN_MARK)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (tree fndecl = gimple_call_fndecl (def_stmt))
> + {
> + /* Some sanitizer calls pass integer arguments to built-ins
> + that expect pointets. Avoid using gimple_call_builtin_p()
pointers
What happened to the suspicion that the fnspec attribs are
allegedly not correct (
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00541.html )?
Wouldn't that deal with this issue transparently if additionally the
args were passed in correctly?
Didn't follow *san closely though.
thanks,
> + which fails for such calls. */
> + if (DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS (fndecl) == BUILT_IN_NORMAL)
> + {
> + built_in_function fncode = DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (fndecl);
> + if (fncode > BEGIN_SANITIZER_BUILTINS
> + && fncode < END_SANITIZER_BUILTINS)
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> + }
>
