This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: IPA: Devirtualization versus placement new


> 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.

I see, that sounds good.  Who will ensure that all calls to builtin_unreachable we introduce
late will get folded?
The testcase dies with -fsanitize=undefined -fdump-ipa-all, I will look into it.
W/o it I get:
.$ ./a.out
t.C:19:41: runtime error: load of null pointer of type '<unknown> *'

I would certainly not really parse this message. It goes away with -fno-devirtualize

Honza


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]