https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:08:55 2017
New Revision: 255295
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255295=gcc=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/83219
* tree-cfg.c: Include asan.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 42751
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Guskov ---
Confirmed on Haswell and Silvermont.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42751=edit
gcc8-pr83219.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> For the -fsanitize=unreachable, maybe just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Because new __builtin_unreachable calls are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the -fsanitize=unreachable, maybe just gimple_seq_unreachable_p shouldn't
return true ever if sanitize_flags_p (SANITIZE_UNREACHABLE).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because new __builtin_unreachable calls are added everywhere in the
optimization pipeline. I'd rather disable the optimizations where we remove
conditionals or switches that branch to __builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
pass_sanopt it seems. Quite late. So how is this supposed to work?
The testcase is
int e;
int
main (void)
{
return e ? 0 : (__builtin_unreachable (), 1);
}
and I bet that if we do
int e;
int
main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hum. Where do we "instrument" __builtin_unreachable () for UBSAN? EVRP
is now more aggressive with recording ranges, where VRP does it only for
SSA names used dominated by an edge EVRP does it always.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83219
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
