Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer/63690

2014-11-19 Thread Marek Polacek
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:12:05PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:51:11PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > As the testcase shows, we should really check first that we > > have a MEM_REF, otherwise subsequent TREE_OPERAND might ICE. > > On an invalid testcase we might get e.

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer/63690

2014-11-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:12:05PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:51:11PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > As the testcase shows, we should really check first that we > > have a MEM_REF, otherwise subsequent TREE_OPERAND might ICE. > > On an invalid testcase we might get e.

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer/63690

2014-11-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:51:11PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > As the testcase shows, we should really check first that we > have a MEM_REF, otherwise subsequent TREE_OPERAND might ICE. > On an invalid testcase we might get e.g. STRING_CST. Well, addr_object_size should handle STRING_CSTs just f