llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGen/catch-implicit-unsigned-int...

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

102 lines
1.6 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

[clang][CodeGen] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer: handle increment/decrement (PR44054)(take 2) Summary: Implicit Conversion Sanitizer is *almost* feature complete. There aren't *that* much unsanitized things left, two major ones are increment/decrement (this patch) and bit fields. As it was discussed in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39519 | PR39519 ]], unlike `CompoundAssignOperator` (which is promoted internally), or `BinaryOperator` (for which we always have promotion/demotion in AST) or parts of `UnaryOperator` (we have promotion/demotion but only for certain operations), for inc/dec, clang omits promotion/demotion altogether, under as-if rule. This is technically correct: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/zPgD As it can be seen in `InstCombineCasts.cpp` `canEvaluateTruncated()`, `add`/`sub`/`mul`/`and`/`or`/`xor` operators can all arbitrarily be extended or truncated: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/901cd3b3f62d0c700e5d2c3f97eff97d634bec5e/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCasts.cpp#L1320-L1334 But that has serious implications: 1. Since we no longer model implicit casts, do we pessimise their AST representation and everything that uses it? 2. There is no demotion, so lossy demotion sanitizer does not trigger :] Now, i'm not going to argue about the first problem here, but the second one **needs** to be addressed. As it was stated in the report, this is done intentionally, so changing this in all modes would be considered a penalization/regression. Which means, the sanitization-less codegen must not be altered. It was also suggested to not change the sanitized codegen to the one with demotion, but i quite strongly believe that will not be the wise choice here: 1. One will need to re-engineer the check that the inc/dec was lossy in terms of `@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` builtins 2. We will still need to compute the result we would lossily demote. (i.e. the result of wide `add`ition/`sub`traction) 3. I suspect it would need to be done right here, in sanitization. Which kinda defeats the point of using `@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` builtins: we'd have two `add`s with basically the same arguments, one of which is used for check+error-less codepath and other one for the error reporting. That seems worse than a single wide op+check. 4. OR, we would need to do that in the compiler-rt handler. Which means we'll need a whole new handler. But then what about the `CompoundAssignOperator`, it would also be applicable for it. So this also doesn't really seem like the right path to me. 5. At least X86 (but likely others) pessimizes all sub-`i32` operations (due to partial register stalls), so even if we avoid promotion+demotion, the computations will //likely// be performed in `i32` anyways. So i'm not really seeing much benefit of not doing the straight-forward thing. While looking into this, i have noticed a few more LLVM middle-end missed canonicalizations, and filed [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100 | PR44100 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44102 | PR44102 ]]. Those are not specific to inc/dec, we also have them for `CompoundAssignOperator`, and it can happen for normal arithmetics, too. But if we take some other path in the patch, it will not be applicable here, and we will have most likely played ourselves. TLDR: front-end should emit canonical, easy-to-optimize yet un-optimized code. It is middle-end's job to make it optimal. I'm really hoping reviewers agree with my personal assessment of the path this patch should take.. This originally landed in 9872ea4ed1de4c49300430e4f1f4dfc110a79ab9 but got immediately reverted in cbfa237892e55b7129a1178c9b03f26683d643af because the assertion was faulty. That fault ended up being caused by the enum - while there will be promotion, both types are unsigned, with same width. So we still don't need to sanitize non-signed cases. So far. Maybe the assert will tell us this isn't so. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44054 | PR44054 ]]. Refs. https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940 Reviewers: rjmccall, erichkeane, rsmith, vsk Reviewed By: erichkeane Subscribers: mehdi_amini, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, #sanitizers, llvm-commits, aaron.ballman, t.p.northover, efriedma, regehr Tags: #llvm, #clang, #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70539
2019-11-27 22:07:06 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation -fsanitize-recover=implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation -emit-llvm %s -o - -triple x86_64-linux-gnu | FileCheck %s -implicit-check-not="call void @__ubsan_handle_implicit_conversion" --check-prefixes=CHECK
// CHECK-LABEL: @t0(
unsigned short t0(unsigned short x) {
#line 100
x++;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t1(
unsigned short t1(unsigned short x) {
#line 200
x--;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t2(
unsigned short t2(unsigned short x) {
#line 300
++x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t3(
unsigned short t3(unsigned short x) {
#line 400
--x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t4(
signed short t4(signed short x) {
#line 500
x++;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t5(
signed short t5(signed short x) {
#line 600
x--;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t6(
signed short t6(signed short x) {
#line 700
++x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t7(
signed short t7(signed short x) {
#line 800
--x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t8(
unsigned char t8(unsigned char x) {
#line 900
x++;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t9(
unsigned char t9(unsigned char x) {
#line 1000
x--;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t10(
unsigned char t10(unsigned char x) {
#line 1100
++x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t11(
unsigned char t11(unsigned char x) {
#line 1200
--x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t12(
signed char t12(signed char x) {
#line 1300
x++;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t13(
signed char t13(signed char x) {
#line 1400
x--;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t14(
signed char t14(signed char x) {
#line 1500
++x;
return x;
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @t15(
signed char t15(signed char x) {
#line 1600
--x;
return x;
}