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.
