On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:32:22AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > >@@ -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. > > Note that the above one actually performs more than what you do in > ubsan_instrument_division, because it works on maybe_constant_value result. > So, perhaps typeck.c should ensure that the ubsan functions are always > called with arguments passed through > maybe_constant_value (fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (opX, tf_none)).
Ah, ok, will add it there. Thanks. Marek