vitalybuka wrote: > > > Why not just enforce -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow with -fwrapv? I > > > suspect it's just overlook, and not intentional behavior. > > > > > > +1 > > We should consider this direction > > The UB-vs-non-UB seemed to be a really specific goal in the existing code. > i.e. that the sanitizer was disabled didn't look like an accident. For people > using this to find _only_ UB, this would be a behavioral change, so to me it > seems like a separate name makes the most sense. Anyone wanting wrap-around > checking can use -wrap, and anyone wanting UB checking can use -overflow.
Isn't this still UB even with -fwrapv? UB is a language feature, not compiler. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80089 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
