https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70875
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah, you're right, the buffer overflow is nasty, even when we diagnose at
runtime it is better not to let it continue into the actual UB. Will test
following then:
2018-03-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR sanitizer/70875
* gcc.dg/ubsan/bounds-3.c: Add -fno-sanitize-recover=bounds to
dg-options and dg-shouldfail "ubsan" directive.
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/bounds-3.c.jj 2016-05-06 15:09:06.361758948
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/bounds-3.c 2018-03-01 17:44:13.722455985
+0100
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
/* PR sanitizer/70875 */
/* { dg-do run } */
-/* { dg-options "-fsanitize=bounds" } */
+/* { dg-options "-fsanitize=bounds -fno-sanitize-recover=bounds" } */
+/* { dg-shouldfail "ubsan" } */
int
foo (int n, int k)
