https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 110493 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
S. Davis Herring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
The null pointer check inserted by the sanitizer is eventually removed (see
below) so there's obviously no point in emitting it to begin with. The DSP
case you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> The difference between success and failure is due to this bit of code in
> symtab.c:
>
> /* With !flag_delete_null_pointer_checks we assume that symbols may
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If we do that, the question is when to (temporarily) enable the null pointer
check deletion (unless disabled explicitly with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
or from the target defaults, like AVR ...).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But we still don't want to optimize aggressively based on assumed null pointer
checks, after all, that is the whole point of the null sanitization.
Would
static inline bool
delete_null_pointer_checks_p ()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe the sanitizers could use sth not visible to the middle-end for null
pointer tests, like a new IFN?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The thing is that -fsanitize=null (and a couple of other sanitizers) imply
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, as it doesn't want all the checks it adds
removed and fold obviously doesn't fold != NULL with
12 matches
Mail list logo
