On 14/01/2016 12:15, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 November 2015 at 20:05, John Snow <js...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/01/2015 09:38 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/10/2015 12:47, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 29 May 2015 at 12:12, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29/05/2015 12:56, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Paolo: ping^2, since we're out of release freeze now? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have some patches, but this isn't really the best time for me to post >>>>>>>> them... >>>>>> Ping...has the timing improved? >>>>> >>>>> Almost. :) Next week, promised. >>>> >>>> Ping again, six months later... >>> >>> Uh, I thought they were already in. :) >>> >>> Paolo >>> >> >> Did patches ever get posted to list for this? > > Not that I saw -- ping again, Paolo. This is the only warning > that clang's sanitizer currently produces for me, and arithmetic > overflows on addition seem genuinely worth investigation...
It happens when the range is 2^64 in size. Does it still matter if we've decided to use -fwrapv because of left shifts? Or are we still considering the possibility to use -std=gnu89 (where left shifts give unspecified behavior rather than undefined)? Paolo
