From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14410 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 13:01:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14399 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2014 13:01:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 15 May 2014 13:01:10 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE2BAD23; Thu, 15 May 2014 13:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:01:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: Marek Polacek cc: Jakub Jelinek , Dodji Seketeli , Konstantin Serebryany , Tobias Burnus , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rsandifo@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for -fno-sanitize-recover and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error (PR sanitizer/60275) In-Reply-To: <20140515124711.GC8173@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20140415101156.GB1817@tucnak.redhat.com> <87a9ajfi5r.fsf@talisman.default> <20140515103357.GL10386@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140515103828.GA8173@redhat.com> <87vbt72oyb.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <20140515124711.GC8173@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01192.txt.bz2 On Thu, 15 May 2014, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > It's not, I'm seeing many > > > /home/marek/src/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h:1734:7: runtime error: shift > > > exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' > > > plus I think I remember some other fails. > > > > Yeah, like Richard said on IRC a few days ago, this is partly due to the > > zero-precision stuff. We need to ween ubsan off void_zero_node and then > > see where things stand. > > Yeah, I don't like void_zero_node that much; I'll see if I can stamp it > out. But note that I see many uses of void_zero_node in the C++ FE. > (ubsan uses void_zero_node only in the c-family/ subdirectory.) They shouldn't survive gimplification though. I suggest to add a check for verify_expr to catch them and ICE if they appear in the IL. Richard.