On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 05:05:51PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: >> This is a similar case to PR sanitizer/70342. Here, we were generating >> expression >> in a quadratic fashion because of the initializer--we create SAVE_EXPR <>, >> then >> UBSAN_NULL <SAVE_EXPR <>>, and then COMPOUND_EXPR of these two and so on. >> >> On this testcase we were instrumention CALL_EXPR that is in fact operator<<. >> I >> think those always return a reference, so it cannot be NULL, so there's no >> point in instrumenting those? > > How do you know what is the return type of a user defined overloaded > operator?
Indeed, there are no constraints on the return type of overloaded operator<<. Jason
