https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #55628|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #89 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 55637
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55637&action=edit
gcc14-bitint-wip.patch
Updated patch with -fsanitize=undefined _BitInt support.
Some of the runtime messages are inaccurate and some are totally incorrect, but
I'm afraid I can't do much until libubsan adds support for _BitInt, which I've
requested in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64100
For +-* overflow the messages look good until (inclusive) _BitInt(128) on
64-bit arches (or _BitInt(64) on 32-bit ones), larger print <unknown> instead
of numbers and think it is unsigned integer overflow rather than signed (but I
think that is better than what clang does when stuff just crashes with what it
emits or prints random numbers).
For / overflow, again up to _BitInt(128) it works fine, otherwise prints
division by zero rather than minimum / -1. For shifts with non-mode precision
_BitInts, even small ones, there are various inaccuracies, because libubsan
think the mode precision is the precision of the type.
