This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't perform A - (-B) -> A + B when sanitizing
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:06:23 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't perform A - (-B) -> A + B when sanitizing
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141112084819 dot GG29791 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1411121045270 dot 374 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <20141112142623 dot GJ29791 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1411121521510 dot 374 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <20141112150733 dot GL29791 at redhat dot com> <20141112151038 dot GH5026 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 04:07:33PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:22:41PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZES?
> >
> > Can I call it sanitize_fold_p and put it as a static inline fn
> > into tree.h?
>
> It is a predicate on type, so perhaps sanitized_type_p ?
> But TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED (better than S) sounds good to me too.
Somehow it should be visible that this is all related to
overflow and thus existing TYPE_OVERFLOW_* checks. So
I like TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED better ;)
Richard.