On 08/15/2013 07:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
if any of the operands is wrapped in SAVE_EXPR, we get an
-Wuninitialized warning. So, what I did is to evaluate
the op0 always in the condition, like "if (op0, )",
which is safe and all the uninitialized warnings are gone,
That sounds fine.
now t
OK.
Jason
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I actually don't know what I prefer more, but if you like this version
> more, I'll go with it. Maybe this is better because we don't have to
> create SAVE_EXPR and also we avoid one fold_build call. Thanks,
Not creating the SAVE_E
Ping.
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:12:58PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:24:59AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 08/07/2013 06:06 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >I might've misunderstood what you mean. If we drop the hunk above,
> > >then we'll call
> > > error ("%q+
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:24:59AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 06:06 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >I might've misunderstood what you mean. If we drop the hunk above,
> >then we'll call
> > error ("%q+E is not a constant expression", t);
> >so, we'll print "is not a constant expre
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:24:08PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 07:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 12:24:32PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>Where are the SAVE_EXPRs coming from? It doesn't seem to me that x
> >>needs to be wrapped in a SAVE_EXPR at all in th
On 08/07/2013 06:06 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
I might've misunderstood what you mean. If we drop the hunk above,
then we'll call
error ("%q+E is not a constant expression", t);
so, we'll print "is not a constant expression" no matter what
Yes, that's fine; 1/0 is not a constant expression,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:07:27PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >I think, what we could do, is to tweak verify_constant like this:
> >
> >+ /* This is to handle e.g. the goofy 'case 0 * (1 / 0)' case. */
> >+ if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_UNDEFINED
> >+ && TREE_CODE (t) == CALL_EXPR
> >+
On 08/06/2013 10:42 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Hm, actually, we can't easily fold the call to the sanitize function
away, I'm afraid, if we want to do it for the 'case '
case. When we hit the DIV_EXPR in 'case 0 * (1 / 0)',
the ubsan_instrument_division gets 1 as a first argument and 0 as
a second
On 08/05/2013 07:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 12:24:32PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Where are the SAVE_EXPRs coming from? It doesn't seem to me that x
needs to be wrapped in a SAVE_EXPR at all in this case. For cases
where the SAVE_EXPR is needed and not used in the tes
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:52:39PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01536.html
>
> Here, the C++ compiler is wrong to fold away the division by zero,
> but given that bug the folding ought to also eliminate the call to
> the sanitize function. Seems like
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 12:24:32PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Where are the SAVE_EXPRs coming from? It doesn't seem to me that x
> needs to be wrapped in a SAVE_EXPR at all in this case. For cases
> where the SAVE_EXPR is needed and not used in the test, you could
> add the SAVE_EXPR before th
On 08/01/2013 02:06 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
SAVE_EXPRs are evaluated only once;
in that COMPOUND_EXPR, when we first encounter SAVE_EXPR and
call get_initialized_tmp_var, we get temporary value for it, x.2.
Then, in the second part of the COMPOUND_EXPR, we meet SAVE_EXPR
again, but it already
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:52:39PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 01:33 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >There are still at least two issues though, which is why
> >bootstrap with -fsanitize=undefined fails:
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01480.html
>
> This looks like
On 07/31/2013 01:33 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
There are still at least two issues though, which is why
bootstrap with -fsanitize=undefined fails:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01480.html
This looks like a serious bug, properly caught by -Wuninitialized.
When sanitizing,
in .uni
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:13:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Otherwise, looks fine. If nobody else has comments, go ahead and
> check it in next week.
I had to make a few changes since, particularly:
- [ubsan] Add -static-libubsan
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01467.html
16 matches
Mail list logo
