On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2019-07-05 01:33, Noah Misch wrote: > > I just saw this proposal. The undefined behavior in question is strictly > > academic. These changes do remove the need for new users to discover > > -fno-sanitize=nonnull-attribute, but they make the code longer and no > > clearer. > > Given the variety of code this touches, I expect future commits will > > reintroduce the complained-of usage patterns, prompting yet more commits to > > restore the invariant achieved here. Hence, I'm -0 for this change. > > This sanitizer has found real problems in the past. By removing these > trivial issues we can then set up a build farm animal or similar to > automatically check for any new issues.
Has it found one real problem that it would not have found given "-fno-sanitize=nonnull-attribute"? I like UBSan in general, but I haven't found a reason to prefer plain "-fsanitize=undefined" over "-fsanitize=undefined -fno-sanitize=nonnull-attribute".
