On 04/12/2015 23:48, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> Why would pointer types be shifted at all (at the ubsan level,
>> which is basically the AST)?
> BTW, if you argument is that we can never get into this code with a
> shift of a pointer object, I'd like to see some kind of analysis to back
> up that asse
On 12/04/2015 01:48 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
gcc:
PR sanitizer/68418
* c-family/c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_shift): Disable
sanitization of left shifts for wrapping signed types as well.
gcc/testsuite:
PR sanitizer/68418
* gcc.dg/ubsan/c99-wrapv-shift-1.
On 12/04/2015 01:48 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
gcc:
PR sanitizer/68418
* c-family/c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_shift): Disable
sanitization of left shifts for wrapping signed types as well.
gcc/testsuite:
PR sanitizer/68418
* gcc.dg/ubsan/c99-wrapv-shift-1.
> >> gcc:
> >>PR sanitizer/68418
> >>* c-family/c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_shift): Disable
> >>sanitization of left shifts for wrapping signed types as well.
> >>
> >> gcc/testsuite:
> >>PR sanitizer/68418
> >>* gcc.dg/ubsan/c99-wrapv-shift-1.c,
> >>gcc.dg/ubsan/c99-wrapv-
On 12/04/2015 10:51 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 25/11/2015 14:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Left shifts into the sign bit is a kind of overflow, and the
standard chooses to treat left shifts of negative values the
same way.
However, the -fwrapv option modifies the language to one where
integers ar
On 25/11/2015 14:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Left shifts into the sign bit is a kind of overflow, and the
> standard chooses to treat left shifts of negative values the
> same way.
>
> However, the -fwrapv option modifies the language to one where
> integers are defined as two's complement---whic
