tinycc-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] missing check after calling type_size in classify_x86


From: Michael Matz
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] missing check after calling type_size in classify_x86_64_arg
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 21:16:08 +0200 (CEST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)

Hello,

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Pascal Cuoq wrote:

That is a big can of worm you have pointed me to.

Historically TCC hasn't cared much about invalid input, so yeah, there be dragons :)

Here is another part of the code that seems wrong and continues to seem wrong even with the suggested change:

... struct_layout excerpt ...

align starts its life as an automatic, uninitialized variable. At each
iteration, the call to type_size sets it unless the call fails and
leaves align's previous value in it.

My only change so far in this function is the comment “call type_size here,
because t->type can be incomplete if it is a flexible array member”: I stand
by this comment, because calling ctype_size here makes TCC abort while
compiling pcctest.c.

Sure, at this point you can't require a complete type (for the reasons you state).

For a flexible array member of a complete element type, this currently works
out fine : size_type stores the element type's alignment even if the array
is a FAM.

Yeah, that's the idea.

struct s {
  char a;
  enum e b[];
} s;

struct t {
  int a[3];
  void b[];
} t;

typedef void u;

struct v {
  int a[3];
  u b[];
} v;

struct w {
  int a[3];
  struct n b[];
} w;

The thing to realize about all these invalid examples is, that it's not the struct decl which is wrong, i.e. you don't need to change anything within struct_decl or struct_layout. It's already the array declarator itself which is wrong: an array declarator requires a complete element type.

So, what you want to change is post_type (which cares for array and function declarators, given a base type) so that the incoming type is complete if necessary.


Ciao,
Michael.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]