kees wrote: > > Why not just enforce -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow with -fwrapv? I > > suspect it's just overlook, and not intentional behavior. > > +1 > > We should consider this direction
The UB-vs-non-UB seemed to be a really specific goal in the existing code. i.e. that the sanitizer was disabled didn't look like an accident. For people using this to find _only_ UB, this would be a behavioral change, so to me it seems like a separate name makes the most sense. Anyone wanting wrap-around checking can use -wrap, and anyone wanting UB checking can use -overflow. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80089 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
