On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:14:17PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Perhaps split this patch into two parts which can be reviewed
> independently, but go into the tree at the same time. The obvious
> hope would be that Uros or one of the other x86 backend folks could
> chime in on that part.
I posted the
On 12/03/13 15:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:14:17PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
--- gcc/ubsan.h.mp 2013-11-27 08:46:28.046629473 +0100
+++ gcc/ubsan.h 2013-11-27 08:46:57.578753342 +0100
@@ -21,6 +21,12 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
#ifndef GCC_UBSAN_H
#def
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:14:17PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >--- gcc/ubsan.h.mp 2013-11-27 08:46:28.046629473 +0100
> >+++ gcc/ubsan.h 2013-11-27 08:46:57.578753342 +0100
> >@@ -21,6 +21,12 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
> > #ifndef GCC_UBSAN_H
> > #define GCC_UBSAN_H
> >
> >+/*
On 11/27/13 01:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
Hi!
Working virtually out of Pago Pago.
The following is the implementation of the signed integer overflow
checking for the UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer. I wrote some of the
generic bits; Jaku
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Working virtually out of Pago Pago.
>
> The following is the implementation of the signed integer overflow
> checking for the UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer. I wrote some of the
> generic bits; Jakub did the i?86 handlind/optab
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:55:52PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > 1) currently, we seem to miscompile some code with -Os. That's why
> >I skipped -Os in some of the test.
>
> The following (untested) incremental fix should hope
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 1) currently, we seem to miscompile some code with -Os. That's why
>I skipped -Os in some of the test.
The following (untested) incremental fix should hopefully fix it.
Perhaps the calls before expand_normal aren't needed, dunn
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 3) for integer overflow checking we will want to thwart some of the
>folding in the C FE. E.g., I think int a = INT_MAX + 1; is folded
>in the FE and thus ubsan doesn't detect because it doesn't see
>any PLUS_EXPR.
Generally, an expression
