On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
Can we just move them to array-sanitizer and thread-sanitizer? I think those are better names than asan and tsan. Shorten names are not useful when a new person is learning the code. Thanks, Andrew > > Jakub
