https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
--- Comment #8 from Eugeniu Rosca ---
On 2018-09-25 at 08:53:34 UTC, Jonathan Wakely wrote in comment #6:
> He already did. Comment 1 quotes the GCC manual which references
> the relevant sections of the standards.
Comment 1 does indeed referen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
--- Comment #5 from Eugeniu Rosca ---
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the much more satisfying answer.
> In C90, it was implemented defined behavior (while in C99 and above it is
> undefined behavior).
I trust you, but why not giving a reference to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
Eugeniu Rosca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
--- Comment #2 from Eugeniu Rosca ---
Hi Andrew,
> As an extension to the C language, GCC does not use the latitude given in C99
> and C11 only to treat certain aspects of signed ‘<<’ as undefined. However,
> -fsanitize=shift (and -fsanitize=u
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: roscaeugeniu at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Dear GCC community,
Porting GCC UBSAN support from Linux kernel to U-Boot [1], we noticed [2] that
UBSAN complains about
