https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't have a huge problem with closing this as won't fix. I do hope to get
around to pr79265 and eliminate some of the unnecessary instrumentation to
improve the efficiency of the instrumented code. If tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least for warnings that require optimizations in order to avoid false
positives like these, I think you need to accept some false positives with
sanitizers, which necessarily cause fewer optimizations (oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I suppose fancy threading gets in the way...
[84.09%]:
# p_4 = PHI
if (p_4 == 0B)
goto ; [0.04%]
else
goto ; [99.96%]
[0.03%]:
__builtin___ubsan_handle_nonnull_arg (&*.Lubsan_data0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
