On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:26:52PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Well I wonder too ;) I thought it can't be NULL, and tried this
>
> struct C {
> C() { __builtin_unreachable (); }
> };
I was more wondering about stuff like:
int a = (__builtin_unreachable (), 1);
or similar.
Jakub
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:34:38PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:26:52PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Well I wonder too ;) I thought it can't be NULL, and tried this
> >
> > struct C {
> > C() { __builtin_unreachable (); }
> > };
>
> I was more wondering about stu
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > --- gcc/builtins.c.mp2 2013-09-17 16:13:26.623161281 +0200
> > +++ gcc/builtins.c 2013-09-17 18:42:11.338273135 +0200
> > @@ -10313,7 +10313,10 @@ fold_builtin_0
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> --- gcc/builtins.c.mp22013-09-17 16:13:26.623161281 +0200
> +++ gcc/builtins.c2013-09-17 18:42:11.338273135 +0200
> @@ -10313,7 +10313,10 @@ fold_builtin_0 (location_t loc, tree fnd
>return fold_builtin_classify_ty
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:24:22PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This patch adds the no_sanitize_undefined attribute, so the user can tell
> that a particular function should be ignored by ubsan.
Does this correspond to some llvm attribute?
> --- gcc/builtins.c.mp22013-09-17 16:13:26.6231
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:37:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:24:22PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This patch adds the no_sanitize_undefined attribute, so the user can tell
> > that a particular function should be ignored by ubsan.
>
> Does this correspond to some
This patch adds the no_sanitize_undefined attribute, so the user can tell
that a particular function should be ignored by ubsan.
Ran ubsan testsuite/bootstrap-ubsan on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2013-09-17 Marek Polacek
PR sanitizer/58411
* doc/extend.texi: Document no_saniti
