kees wrote: > Sure -fwrapv makes wraparound defined, but it doesn't prevent us from making > -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow useful. "-fwrapv => no > signed-integer-overflow" is not a solid argument. > > I think we can try making -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow effective even > when -fwrapv if specified. -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow is rare in the > wild, probably rarer when combined with -fwrapv. .
In earlier GCC discussions, it seemed very much like the `-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow` was meant for UB only, but maybe I misunderstood. See replies leading up to this: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630578.html 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
