On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >+ tt = fold_build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node, op1,
> >+ integer_minus_one_node);
>
> Don't we usually try to have both operands of a comparison of the
> same type?
Will fix.
> >+ t = fold_build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node, op0,
> >+ TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TREE_TYPE (op0)));
>
> I didn't see where this test was restricted to the signed case
> (0u/-1 is well defined)?
Will fix.
> >+ t = fold_build2 (TRUTH_AND_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t, tt);
> >+ tt = build2 (EQ_EXPR, boolean_type_node,
> >+ op1, integer_zero_node);
>
> Why not fold this one?
Sure, will do.
> Name unsigned_type_for (TREE_TYPE (op1)) and TYPE_PRECISION
> (TREE_TYPE (op0)) that are used several times?
Yeah.
> >@@ -4070,8 +4077,15 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
> > {
> > enum tree_code tcode0 = code0, tcode1 = code1;
> > tree cop1 = fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (op1, tf_none);
> >+ cop1 = maybe_constant_value (cop1);
> >
> >- warn_for_div_by_zero (location, maybe_constant_value (cop1));
> >+ if (!processing_template_decl && tcode0 == INTEGER_TYPE
> >+ && (TREE_CODE (cop1) != INTEGER_CST
> >+ || integer_zerop (cop1)
> >+ || integer_minus_onep (cop1)))
> >+ doing_div_or_mod = true;
>
> Aren't you already doing this test in ubsan_instrument_division?
Yep, I'll throw it out of cp/typeck.c.
Thanks for the review!
Marek
