[Bug target/64003] valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in insn-attrtab.c from i386.md

["ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003

--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #21)

> Then we have three problematic patterns and the easiest way to handle it is
> to get rid of ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p call in length computation for them. 
> I think the easiest way to do it is to have separate bnd and nobnd patterns
> for these instructions.  Attached patch helps me to resolve valgrind error. 
> Is such approach fine?

Maybe "enabled" attribute can help here to avoid unnecessary duplication.
>From gcc-bugs-return-469530-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Dec 05 10:49:20 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469530-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21607 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2014 10:49:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21563 invoked by uid 48); 5 Dec 2014 10:49:15 -0000
From: "y.gribov at samsung dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/63888] [5 Regression] bootstrap failed when configured with -with-build-config=bootstrap-asan --disable-werror
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: y.gribov at samsung dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63888-4-3cFDaBdiWi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63888-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63888-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00537.txt.bz2
Content-length: 735

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc888

--- Comment #11 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> An ODR violation is IMHO something different, it is the case where you have
> the same symbol name (but, you'd need to distinguish between globally
> visible symbols that should be ODR checked and local symbols and/or symbols
> from languages you don't want to check for it) registered multiple times for
> multiple addresses.  So you'd need to hash based on the symbol name if
> marked for ODR checking, and check if the same (non-comdat) global isn't
> registered several times.

There is already proposal to this in UBSan:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id!498