| // Test to verify that the strlen() optimization doesn't make assumptions |
| // about the static type of the object pointed to by its argument. See |
| // the following thread for background: |
| // https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00260.html |
| |
| // { dg-do run } |
| // { dg-options "-O2 -Wall -fdump-tree-optimized" } |
| |
| typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t; |
| |
| void *operator new[] (size_t, void *p) { return p; } |
| |
| struct S { int x; char a[1]; char b[64]; }; |
| |
| __attribute__ ((noipa)) void |
| init (char *s) |
| { |
| *s++ = '1'; |
| *s++ = '\0'; |
| } |
| |
| __attribute__ ((noipa)) void |
| test_dynamic_type (S *p) |
| { |
| // The placement new call below isn't strictly valid because it |
| // creates an object that is larger than the space of the p->a |
| // subobject in which it is created. However, the corresponding |
| // GIMPLE considers it valid and there's apparently no way to |
| // distinguish invalid cases from ones like it that might be valid. |
| // If/when GIMPLE changes to make this possible this test can be |
| // removed. |
| char *q = new (p->a) char [16]; // { dg-warning "\\\[-Wplacement-new" } |
| |
| init (q); |
| |
| if (0 == __builtin_strlen (q)) |
| __builtin_abort(); |
| } |
| |
| int main () |
| { |
| test_dynamic_type (new S); |
| } |