[Clang][ARM] Call constructor on BranchTargetInfo. #98307
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Otherwise members will be uninitialised.
llvmbot
added
clang
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-codegen @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Daniel Kiss (DanielKristofKiss) ChangesOtherwise members will be uninitialised. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98307.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/ARM.cpp b/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/ARM.cpp
index d449b97cdc685..93fea94a77248 100644
--- a/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/ARM.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/ARM.cpp
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ class ARMTargetCodeGenInfo : public TargetCodeGenInfo {
ParsedTargetAttr Attr =
CGM.getTarget().parseTargetAttr(TA->getFeaturesStr());
if (!Attr.BranchProtection.empty()) {
- TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo BPI;
+ TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo BPI{};
StringRef DiagMsg;
StringRef Arch =
Attr.CPU.empty() ? CGM.getTarget().getTargetOpts().CPU : Attr.CPU;
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
index 73a85ff39667b..f2cd46d1e7c93 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
@@ -2991,7 +2991,7 @@ bool Sema::checkTargetAttr(SourceLocation LiteralLoc, StringRef AttrStr) {
<< Unsupported << None << CurFeature << Target;
}
- TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo BPI;
+ TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo BPI{};
StringRef DiagMsg;
if (ParsedAttrs.BranchProtection.empty())
return false;
|
jthackray
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2024
|
Can something be done to prevent this happening accidentally again? |
+1. Currently, the struct is initialised with: |
|
IIRC there is a clang-tidy check that diagnoses uninitialized PODs, but probably making the constructor non-trivial is simpler / more reliable. |
s-barannikov
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2024
|
Whatever the solution is, it would be better off done now, as "in future" is likely to get forgotten. |
|
Let's initialise everything from both of the constructors (as it was in an early version of the original patches) |
Comment on lines
1437
to
1443
| BranchProtectionInfo() { | ||
| SignReturnAddr = LangOptions::SignReturnAddressScopeKind::None; | ||
| SignKey = LangOptions::SignReturnAddressKeyKind::AKey; | ||
| BranchTargetEnforcement = false; | ||
| BranchProtectionPAuthLR = false; | ||
| GuardedControlStack = false; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| BranchProtectionInfo() { | |
| SignReturnAddr = LangOptions::SignReturnAddressScopeKind::None; | |
| SignKey = LangOptions::SignReturnAddressKeyKind::AKey; | |
| BranchTargetEnforcement = false; | |
| BranchProtectionPAuthLR = false; | |
| GuardedControlStack = false; | |
| }; | |
| BranchProtectionInfo() : | |
| SignReturnAddr(LangOptions::SignReturnAddressScopeKind::None), | |
| SignKey(LangOptions::SignReturnAddressKeyKind::AKey), | |
| BranchTargetEnforcement(false), | |
| BranchProtectionPAuthLR(false), | |
| GuardedControlStack(false) | |
| {} |
This is more likely to show up warnings if something gets missed or reordered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
right, added and clang-formated.
| @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ class ARMTargetCodeGenInfo : public TargetCodeGenInfo { | |||
| ParsedTargetAttr Attr = | |||
| CGM.getTarget().parseTargetAttr(TA->getFeaturesStr()); | |||
| if (!Attr.BranchProtection.empty()) { | |||
| TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo BPI; | |||
| TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo BPI{}; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are unnecessary now, right? Making them explicit is fine though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, now unnecessary, maybe more stylish.
tmatheson-arm
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2024
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/66/builds/1294 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference: |
aaryanshukla
pushed a commit
to aaryanshukla/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2024
Otherwise members will be uninitialised.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Otherwise members will be uninitialised.