Hello. I've prepared patch for the PR that is very similar to what was done in PR65044. I've been currently testing the patch on x86_64-linux.
Ready to be installed after it finishes? Thanks, Martin
>From a04b8e09388499686aabd401ef33e2821f3f0809 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:09:07 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Do not enable -fcheck-pointer-bounds w/ -fsanitize=bounds gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-06-09 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> PR sanitizer/71458 * toplev.c (process_options): Do not enable -fcheck-pointer-bounds w/ -fsanitize=bounds. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-06-09 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> * gcc.target/i386/pr71458.c: New test. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr71458.c | 7 +++++++ gcc/toplev.c | 9 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr71458.c diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr71458.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr71458.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..27e7764 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr71458.c @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! x32 } } } */ +/* { dg-options "-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx -fsanitize=bounds" } */ +/* { dg-error "-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with -fsanitize=bounds" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */ + +enum {} a[0]; +void fn1(int); +void fn2() { fn1(a[-1]); } diff --git a/gcc/toplev.c b/gcc/toplev.c index 543b8a3..f51d2cb 100644 --- a/gcc/toplev.c +++ b/gcc/toplev.c @@ -1276,6 +1276,15 @@ process_options (void) "Address Sanitizer"); flag_check_pointer_bounds = 0; } + + if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_BOUNDS) + { + error_at (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, + "-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with " + "-fsanitize=bounds"); + flag_check_pointer_bounds = 0; + } + } /* One region RA really helps to decrease the code size. */ -- 2.8.3