This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 12/19/13 09:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:55:50PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:On 12/16/13 11:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote:On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:40:16PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:It can be the last thing, sure. I think the still unimplemented and potentially useful are the floating point overflow sanitization (haven't looked yet what exactly it is, I suppose casts from floating point to integers where the values are out of range, but dunno exactly) and they have also some __builtin_object_size based bounds checking.Oh, and then there is sanitization of nonnull arguments and returns_nonnull return values which ideally we should add, clang doesn't have it (yet?), but it is really desirable when we aggressively optimize based on those attributes. We need to discuss with compiler-rt ubsan upstream first though, unless we want to add the entrypoint as a GCC only libubsan addition.This, IMHO, clearly needs to wait.You mean -fsanitize={bool,enum} (the already posted patch, which just discovered a bug in GCC itself today), -fsanitize=nonnull (the non-written future task), something else?
I was referring to sanitize-null. jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |