On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:44:07AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Comments, please?
> I think it might be better to do handle this while gimplification
> happens rather than while parsing. The main reason is that constexpr
> might fail due to the added function calls.
Gimplification is too late, the FEs perform various operation shortenings
etc. in many cases, and what exactly is undefined behavior is apparently
heavily dependent on the particular language (C has different rules from
C++). Yes, constexpr is something to consider in this light, but not
something that can't be handled (recognizing ubsan builtins and just
handling them specially).
> Also please don't shorten file names like ubsan, we already have file
> names which don't fit in the older POSIX tar format and needs extended
> length support.
We already have asan.c and tsan.c, and that is how it is commonly called.
Jakub
