================ @@ -122,6 +122,26 @@ Non-comprehensive list of changes in this release New Compiler Flags ------------------ +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-bitfield-truncation`` catches implicit + unsigned conversions involving bitfields. +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-signed-bitfield-truncation`` catches implicit + signed conversions involving bitfields. +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-bitfield-sign-change`` catches implicit + conversions involving bitfields that result in a sign change. +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-bitfield-truncation`` a group to include both + ``-fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-bitfield-truncation`` and + ``-fsanitize=implicit-signed-bitfield-truncation``. +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-bitfield-arithmetic-value-change`` a group to + include both ``implicit-signed-bitfield-truncation`` and + ``implicit-bitfield-sign-change``. +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-bitfield-conversion`` a group to include + ``-fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-bitfield-truncation``, + ``-fsanitize=implicit-signed-bitfield-truncation`` and + ``implicit-bitfield-sign-change``. +- ``-fsanitize=implicit-integer-conversion`` a group to include + ``-fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation``, + ``-fsanitize=implicit-signed-integer-truncation`` and + ``implicit-integer-sign-change``. ---------------- rjmccall wrote:
Do we really need a million different flags here? The reason we have different checks for different signednesses with the normal conversion checks, I think, is because the standard actually treats them differently: some of those checks are actually checking for UB. Since there's no UB here in any case, I think you may be overthinking this. Consider just having `-fsanitize=implicit-bitfield-conversion`, which covers every case in which the value we'd read out the bitfield is not the value that we assigned into it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75481 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
