Re: [PATCH] Optimize BIT_AND_EXPRs for UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE

2014-11-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:47:05PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > @@ -1456,6 +1457,8 @@ instrument_object_size (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, bool > is_lhs) > } >break; > case ARRAY_REF: > + index = TREE_OPERAND (t, 1); > + break; > case INDIRECT_REF: > case MEM_

Re: [PATCH] Optimize BIT_AND_EXPRs for UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE

2014-11-03 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/03/14 13:47, Marek Polacek wrote: We don't emit UBSAN_BOUNDS checks in case we can at compile-time prove that the array access is fine. Also if we have [i & CST], where CST is <= bound_of_the_array, we know we're fine as well. But we don't have similar BIT_AND_EXPR check for UBSAN_OBJECT_