[Bug middle-end/114700] Front-end optimization generates wrong code with -fsanitize=undefined

2024-04-12 Thread lin1.hu at intel dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700 --- Comment #14 from Hu Lin --- Created attachment 57933 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57933&action=edit Untested fix.

[Bug middle-end/114700] Front-end optimization generates wrong code with -fsanitize=undefined

2024-04-12 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700 --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- And IIRC there are various suggestion saying "if you want -fwrapv, you are likely actually wanting -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow" and some plan deprecating -fwrapv. So it's more important to fix the sanit

[Bug middle-end/114700] Front-end optimization generates wrong code with -fsanitize=undefined

2024-04-12 Thread lin1.hu at intel dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700 --- Comment #12 from Hu Lin --- (In reply to Hu Lin from comment #11) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9) > > That that GCC doesn't promise that -ftrapv preserves all overflows and > > traps, it merely guarantees that all overflows th

[Bug middle-end/114700] Front-end optimization generates wrong code with -fsanitize=undefined

2024-04-11 Thread lin1.hu at intel dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700 --- Comment #11 from lin1.hu at intel dot com --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9) > That that GCC doesn't promise that -ftrapv preserves all overflows and > traps, it merely guarantees that all overflows that actually happen trap. >

[Bug middle-end/114700] Front-end optimization generates wrong code with -fsanitize=undefined

2024-04-11 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114700 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Front-end optimization |Front-end optimization |g