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. > > > > > > Isn't this still UB even with -fwrapv? UB is a language feature, not > > compiler. > > `-fwrapv` is essentially a language dialect that defines the behavior of > integer wraparound. It is no longer UB in compilations using that mode.
Right. `-fwrapv` defines the signed integer overflow resolution strategy. Without `-fwrapv` it is undefined (default language feature). With `-fwrapv` it is defined as 2s-complement wrap-around (and is well defined, like unsigned integer 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
