lebedev.ri added a comment. In D99790#2680366 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790#2680366>, @brooksmoses wrote:
> In D99790#2678674 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790#2678674>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> In D99790#2678384 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790#2678384>, @brooksmoses >> wrote: >> >>> In any case, thanks for the quick reply, and I'll figure out a small >>> reproducer if we find something that isn't UB. >> >> Nono, you misunderstand, i want the samples *with* UB. >> I will then revert this, and add UBSan check to catch that UB first. > > Oh! Okay, will do. Do you still want the samples even if UBSan catches them? I'm interested in the cases that *aren't* currently being caught by UBSan, or are caught too late. > Meanwhile, would you be open to providing a gating flag to turn this off, so > we can roll it out generally while turning it off for the specific things > that have issues until we can fix them? So far, what we're finding is caught > by UBSan but not very trivial to fix. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
