https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115551
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We should also verify that it doesn't stand in the way of shift sanitization,
because
unsigned int a;
...
1 << (5 + a);
is well defined only for a in [0, 26] while once we optimize it to
(1 << 5) << a;
that would be well defined for a in [0, 31]. I think the shift sanitization is
done early, so just something to be verified in a testcase next to the patch.
