JustinStitt wrote: > > Right, unsigned overflow is well-defined. This isn't about the semantics of > > "undefined-ness". We want the unsigned sanitizer ON but some of the things > > it reports are noisy -- that's what this PR is about > > "Idiom" seems to vague to me. kernel has own opinion on what is ideom, other > users may have different ideoms.
What's a better word? Pattern? > > Also so far we were able to avoid behavior tweaking flags in UBSAN. like > `-fno-sanitize-overflow-idioms` (e.g. we have them in Asan). In UBSAN we were > able to express as sets of checks. It would be nice to continue these way. > > WDYT on splitting existing checks into smaller checks with verbose naming? Yes, that's a good idea. Doing it that way, we can add more "idioms" in the future and users can opt into those ones. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100272 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
