> It seems to me the proper approach is to teach the tool to accept
> this, and to avoid cluttering the tree with churn to work around the
> tool's deficiency, unless there's actually a serious compelling
> argument -- beyond a language-lawyering troll -- that (char *)NULL + 0
> is meaningfully
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:51:08 +0100
> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>
> On 23.02.2020 20:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:51:08 +0100
> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>
> On 23.02.2020 20:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:25:42 +0100
> >> From: Kamil
On 23.02.2020 20:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:25:42 +0100
>> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>>
>> When running the ATF tests under MKLIBCSANITIZER [1], there are many
>> NULL pointer arithmetic issues .
>>
>>
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:25:42 +0100
> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>
> When running the ATF tests under MKLIBCSANITIZER [1], there are many
> NULL pointer arithmetic issues .
>
> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/mksanitizer-reports/ubsan-2020-02-22-null-pointer.txt
>
> These issues are in macros like:
>