https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #3) > This is incorrect. > unsigned-integer-overflow is *NOT* enabled by -fsanitize=undefined > It is enabled by -fsanitize=integer, separately. > I'm not enabling it erroneously, but very intentionally. But it still incorrectly claims there is undefined behaviour. Your own godbolt link shows: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior ... We've talked about this before, see PR 97844. > All i'm asking is to improve the UX of the user-facing side > of the C++ standard library implementation, > and make it more usable by wider variety of the scenarios. Please stop asking other people to work around broken tools that they don't use themselves. You want a workaround, propose a patch. > In fact, this is a regression. > This was not happening in libstdc++-11, or ever before. The code is nearly a decade old, and you even commented on PR 97844 about it happening in gcc 10. So I don't know where you get the idea it's new in gcc-12.
