https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The reason for implied -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks for -fsanitize=null,
-fsanitize=nonnull or -fsanitize=returns-nonnull is that the checks themselves
would be optimized away. In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
--- Comment #2 from Zack Weinberg zackw at panix dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
-fsanitize=null seems to imply -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, so I assume
this is on purpose. It would actually be quite natural for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Samsonov samsonov at google dot com ---
FYI, Jakub has proposed a patch to add additional check to -fsanitize=undefined
that would specifically sanitize functions with returns_nonnull attribute:
however, it would
