public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, joseph@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Do not sanitize left shifts for -fwrapv
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151118125140.GB21807@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1447767170-3413-1-git-send-email-bonzini@gnu.org>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 02:32:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Left shifts into the sign bit is a kind of overflow, and the
> standard chooses to treat left shifts of negative values the
> same way.
> 
> However, the -fwrapv option modifies the language to one where
> integers are defined as two's complement---which also defines
> entirely the behavior of shifts.  Disable sanitization of left
> shifts when -fwrapv is in effect.
> 
> This needs test cases of course, but I wanted to be sure in advance
> whether this is an acceptable change and whether it is considered
> a bug (thus acceptable for stage 3).  The same change was proposed
> for LLVM at https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25552.
> 
> Paolo
> 
> * c-family/c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_shift): Disable sanitization
> of left shifts for wrapping signed types as well.
> 
> 
> Index: c-family/c-ubsan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- c-family/c-ubsan.c	(revision 227511)
> +++ c-family/c-ubsan.c	(working copy)
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@
>       (unsigned) x >> (uprecm1 - y)
>       if non-zero, is undefined.  */
>    if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR
> -      && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type0)
> +      && !TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type0)
>        && flag_isoc99)
>      {
>        tree x = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, op1_utype, uprecm1,
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
>       x < 0 || ((unsigned) x >> (uprecm1 - y))
>       if > 1, is undefined.  */
>    if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR
> -      && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type0)
> +      && !TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (type0)
>        && (cxx_dialect >= cxx11))
>      {
>        tree x = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, op1_utype, uprecm1,

I think this would be ok provided you add some testcases (unless I'm missing
something).  Note that this suppresses instrumenting not only left-shifting
into the sign bit, but also shift overflows, so e.g. 10 << 30.

And I think this might be viewed on as a bug, thus should be ok even at this
stage if you open a PR.

	Marek

      reply	other threads:[~2015-11-18 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-17 13:33 Paolo Bonzini
2015-11-18 12:51 ` Marek Polacek [this message]

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=20151118125140.GB21807@redhat.com \
    --to=polacek@redhat.com \
    --cc=bonzini@gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
    /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).