vsk added a comment. In D86000#2219322 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86000#2219322>, @jfb wrote:
> In D86000#2219288 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86000#2219288>, @vsk wrote: > >> It'd be nice to fold the new check into an existing sanitizer group to bring >> this to a wider audience. Do you foresee adoption issues for existing >> -fsanitize=integer adopters? Fwiw some recently-added implicit conversion >> checks were folded in without much/any pushback. > > `integer` does "not actually UB checks", right? I can certainly put it in > there if you think I won't get yelled at 😄 Can't guarantee you won't get yelled at, but it does seem like the natural fit. It already includes other unsigned overflow checks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86000/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86000 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
