This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Volker Simonis <volker dot simonis at gmail dot com>, jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:46:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CA+3eh12AS96AwAdVnas944ZCUWmCuuNYc6ZTF2Pq+Orp1Yuuzw at mail dot gmail dot com> <535A6EB1 dot 80700 at redhat dot com> <20140425182322 dot GA10553 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20140425184846 dot GU1817 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On 04/25/2014 07:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:23:22PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> On 04/25/2014 03:14 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>> Could you therefore please re-categorize this as devirt bug.
>>> It is an IPA bug. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
>> Now when I have interest from ubsan direction, I wanted to ask. Would it make sense to turn
>> those unreachables into traps with ubsan enabled? (similarly in the loop stuff)
> With -fsanitize=undefined __builtin_unreachable is folded right away into a
> library call that will emit a message and then die.
In theory, yes. With this one, though, gcc 4.9-compiled binary just
crashed with a segv.