This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add support for -fno-sanitize-recover and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error (PR sanitizer/60275)
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, 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 14:59:06 +0200 (CEST)
- 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> <20140515124711 dot GC8173 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 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.)
They shouldn't survive gimplification though. I suggest to add
a check for verify_expr to catch them and ICE if they appear in
the IL.
Richard.