rjmccall 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.
`-fwrapv` is essentially a language dialect that defines the behavior of integer wraparound. It is no longer UB in compilations using that mode. 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
