On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:55:50PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/16/13 11:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:40:16PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>It can be the last thing, sure. I think the still unimplemented and
> >>potentially useful are the floating point overflow sanitization (haven't
> >>looked yet what exactly it is, I suppose casts from floating point to
> >>integers where the values are out of range, but dunno exactly) and
> >>they have also some __builtin_object_size based bounds checking.
> >
> >Oh, and then there is sanitization of nonnull arguments and returns_nonnull
> >return values which ideally we should add, clang doesn't have it (yet?), but
> >it is really desirable when we aggressively optimize based on those
> >attributes. We need to discuss with compiler-rt ubsan upstream first
> >though, unless we want to add the entrypoint as a GCC only libubsan addition.
> This, IMHO, clearly needs to wait.
You mean -fsanitize={bool,enum} (the already posted patch, which just
discovered a bug in GCC itself today), -fsanitize=nonnull (the non-written
future
task), something else?
Jakub
