MaskRay wrote: This is a UI discussion about how command line options should behave. Some folks prefer simpler rules while some prefer smart rules (guessing what the user intends).
A [-fwrapv](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Code-Gen-Options.html#index-fwrapv) user may either: * rely on the wraparound behavior * or prevent certain optimizations that would raise security concerns Our -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow design have been assuming that -fwrapv users don't need the check. This PR suggests that an important user does want overflow checks. It seems very confusing to have two options doing the same thing. I think we can try -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow effective when -fwrapv. There is a precedent that -fsanitize=undefined enables different checks for different targets. We could make -fsanitize=undefined not imply -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow when -fwrapv is specified, if we do want to guess the user intention. Personally I'd prefer moving away from such behaviors and be more orthogonal. 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
