This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add support for -fno-sanitize-recover and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error (PR sanitizer/60275)
- From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Dodji Seketeli <dseketel at redhat dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rsandifo at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 14:47:11 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for -fno-sanitize-recover and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error (PR sanitizer/60275)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140415101156 dot GB1817 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <87a9ajfi5r dot fsf at talisman dot default> <20140515103357 dot GL10386 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140515103828 dot GA8173 at redhat dot com> <87vbt72oyb dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > It's not, I'm seeing many
> > /home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h:1734:7: runtime error: shift
> > exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int'
> > plus I think I remember some other fails.
> Yeah, like Richard said on IRC a few days ago, this is partly due to the
> zero-precision stuff. We need to ween ubsan off void_zero_node and then
> see where things stand.
Yeah, I don't like void_zero_node that much; I'll see if I can stamp it
out. But note that I see many uses of void_zero_node in the C++ FE.
(ubsan uses void_zero_node only in the c-family/ subdirectory.)