https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87837
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > That is unfortunately too hard, because there are just too many places where > the FEs can construct these. > That said, having one macro like TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED that would combine > that and !TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED for that type might make things easier. But then we go back to that tri-state of -fno-strict-overflow we had before... Thus, !TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED doesn't imply TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS (ok, -ftrapv "breaks" that as well, but -ftrapv should instrument ops IMHO and in reality we need some IL representation of UNDEFINED vs. WRAPS as well).
