On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 06:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >Given that the code above seems to be useless now, I think let's put this
> >patch in as-is, backport it to gcc-5, then remove those redundant hunks on
> >trunk and add the testcase
On 09/24/2015 11:32 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:55:53PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/23/2015 06:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Given that the code above seems to be useless now, I think let's put this
patch in as-is, backport it to gcc-5, then remove those redundant
On 09/22/2015 05:11 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
diff --git gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
index e0cce84..d2bc264 100644
--- gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
+++ gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ ubsan_instrument_division (location_t loc, tree op0, tree
op1)
}
}
t =
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 01:08:53PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 05:11 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> >diff --git gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
> >index e0cce84..d2bc264 100644
> >--- gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
> >+++ gcc/c-family/c-ubsan.c
> >@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@
On 09/23/2015 06:07 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Given that the code above seems to be useless now, I think let's put this
patch in as-is, backport it to gcc-5, then remove those redundant hunks on
trunk and add the testcase above. Do you agree?
Sounds reasonable. If you can find a point in the
This fixes sanitizer/64906 by also pre-evaluating OP1. The problem
in this testcase is that OP1 is "SAVE_EXPR " which can't
be folded any more, but when we're creating the EQ_EXPR -- checking
whether this expression equals zero -- it can be folded further to
"f == 0". Afterwards we end up with
