From 35ce9afc84a63fb647a90cbecb2adf3e748178be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Martin Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:11:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] c++: Properly fold .* [PR114525] We've been miscompiling the following since r0-51314-gd6b4ea8592e338 (I did not go compile something that old, and identified this change via git blame, so might be wrong) === cut here === struct Foo { int x; }; Foo& get (Foo &v) { return v; } void bar () { Foo v; v.x = 1; (true ? get (v) : get (v)).*(&Foo::x) = 2; // v.x still equals 1 here... } === cut here === The problem lies in build_m_component_ref, that computes the address of the COND_EXPR using build_address to build the representation of (true ? get (v) : get (v)).*(&Foo::x); and gets something like &(true ? get (v) : get (v)) // #1 instead of (true ? &get (v) : &get (v)) // #2 and the write does not go where want it to, hence the miscompile. This patch replaces the call to build_address by a call to cp_build_addr_expr, which gives #2, that is properly handled. PR c++/114525 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * typeck2.cc (build_m_component_ref): Call cp_build_addr_expr instead of build_address. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/expr/cond18.C: New test. --- gcc/cp/typeck2.cc | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cond18.C | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cond18.C diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc index 1adc05aa86d..45edd180173 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.cc @@ -2387,7 +2387,7 @@ build_m_component_ref (tree datum, tree component, tsubst_flags_t complain) (cp_type_quals (type) | cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (datum)))); - datum = build_address (datum); + datum = cp_build_addr_expr (datum, complain); /* Convert object to the correct base. */ if (binfo) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cond18.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cond18.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..326985eed50 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/expr/cond18.C @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +/* PR c++/114525 */ +/* { dg-do run } */ + +struct Foo { + int x; +}; + +Foo& get (Foo& v) { + return v; +} + +int main () { + bool cond = true; + + /* Testcase from PR; v.x would wrongly remain equal to 1. */ + Foo v_ko; + v_ko.x = 1; + (cond ? get (v_ko) : get (v_ko)).*(&Foo::x) = 2; + if (v_ko.x != 2) + __builtin_abort (); + + /* Those would already work, i.e. x be changed to 2. */ + Foo v_ok_1; + v_ok_1.x = 1; + (cond ? get (v_ok_1) : get (v_ok_1)).x = 2; + if (v_ok_1.x != 2) + __builtin_abort (); + + Foo v_ok_2; + v_ok_2.x = 1; + get (v_ok_2).*(&Foo::x) = 2; + if (v_ok_2.x != 2) + __builtin_abort (); + + return 0; +}