https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #12 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #11)
> The trouble with "optimize" is that it just doesn't work. The kernel has
> banned its use because it results in all other optimization options being
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #11 from Kees Cook ---
The trouble with "optimize" is that it just doesn't work. The kernel has banned
its use because it results in all other optimization options being forgotten
for the function in question.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The optimize attribute is how different options are represented in LTO
compilation, so it grew over years from perhaps initial debugging use to
something that is used everywhere. And we definitely aren't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #9 from Kees Cook ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> So, instead (when building the kernel with sanitization) build with
> -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow and no -fno-strict-overflow, and
> the routines where you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, instead (when building the kernel with sanitization) build with
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow and no -fno-strict-overflow, and
the routines where you want wrapv behavior and not runtime traps build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #7 from Kees Cook ---
The problem the kernel needs to solve is basically having our cake and eating
it too. :)
In _most_ situations, we want signed overflows to trap (i.e. get caught by
"-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow").
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That doesn't make sense. -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow also removes that
undefined behavior by defining what happens on signed integer overflow, one can
choose whether to get a non-fatal runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #5 from Qing Zhao ---
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 4:45 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
>> is it possible to make -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow work with -fwrapv?
>
> Why would it? they conflict.
This is a feature that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > -fno-strict-overflow maps directly to -fwrapv .
> >
> > If you want to use -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> -fno-strict-overflow maps directly to -fwrapv .
>
> If you want to use -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow, you can just remove
> both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102317
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-fno-strict-overflow maps directly to -fwrapv .
If you want to use -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow, you can just remove both
-fno-strict-overflow -fwrapv. -fwrapv is implied for code later on.
13 matches
Mail list logo
