http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #18) > I'll also note that the plan for the isolated paths that exhibit undefined > behaviour is to have them trap/abort at the statement which triggers the > undefined behaviour. Not even a -fif-it-is-undefined-I-deserve-what-I-get option (or -fmy-program-will-not-abort which turns __builtin_abort into __builtin_unreachable)? I understand that if I try to debug a program by adding printf to check that this branch is not taken and it is taken but nothing is printed, I'll be confused. But don't we lose a large part of the benefit by only propagating the detection of undefined behavior forward (abort) and not also backward (unreachable)?
