public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/97553] [missed optimization] constexprness not noticed when UBsan enabled
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:34:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-97553-4-LGJxExbGux@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-97553-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97553

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Whether the function is constexpr or not doesn't really matter when you
evaluate it in non-constant expression contexts.  In those the ubsan
instrumentation is bypassed (the constant expression evaluation does similar
checking), but otherwise it is a normal function like any other, which
including the instrumentation is inlined etc.  And, the runtime sanitization
intentionally isn't heavily optimized away, because the intent is to detect
when the code is invalid, so it can't e.g. optimize away those checks based on
assumption that undefined behavior will not happen.
If you want a constant via C++ means, use int foo() { constexpr int x =
g().length(); return x; }

  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-23 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-23 16:27 [Bug c++/97553] New: " eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
2020-10-23 16:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-10-26 16:50 ` [Bug c++/97553] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-26 19:40 ` eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
2020-10-26 19:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-26 20:46 ` eyalroz at technion dot ac.il
2023-02-17 20:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-02 19:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26 13:18 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-97553-4-LGJxExbGux@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).