> Formatting. The {} should be indented like static > and return 2 columns to the right of that.
Right. > For base_addr computation, you don't really need g or ptr_checks, > do you? So why not move the: > auto_vec<gimple> *ptr_checks = &ctx->asan_check_map.get_or_insert (ptr); > gimple g = maybe_get_dominating_check (*ptr_checks); > lines below the if? I can do this. But then base_checks would be invalidated when I call get_or_insert for ptr_checks so I'll still have to hash_map::get. > If asan (kernel-address) is > recovering, I don't see a difference from not reporting two different > invalid accesses to the same function and not reporting two integer > overflows in the same function, at least if they have different > location_t. Ok, agreed. BTW how about replacing '& SANITIZE_KERNEL_ADDRESS' with '& SANITIZE_ADDRESS'? I know we do not support recovery for userspace but having a general enum sounds more logical. -Y -- View this message in context: http://gcc.1065356.n5.nabble.com/PATCH-Optimize-UBSAN-NULL-checks-add-sanopt-c-tp1085786p1095527.html Sent from the gcc - patches mailing list archive at Nabble.com.