================
@@ -193,7 +193,14 @@ Available checks are:
signed division overflow (``INT_MIN/-1``), but not checks for
lossy implicit conversions performed before the computation
(see ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion``). Both of these two issues are
- handled by ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion`` group of checks.
+ handled by ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion`` group of checks. Note that
+ ``-fwrapv`` implicitly disables instrumentation for much of the arithmetic
+ covered by ``-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow``.
+ - ``-fsanitize=signed-integer-wrap``: Signed Integer wraparound, where the
+ result of a signed integer computation wraps around. Behaves identically
+ to ``-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow`` when ``-fwrapv`` is enabled.
+ Without ``-fwrapv`` or ``-fno-strict-overflow``, this sanitizer will only
+ instrument division operations.
----------------
JustinStitt wrote:
> Actually it's very inconsistent that the sanitizer is less strict without
> `-fwrapv`, when for `signed-integer-overflow` we have an opposite.
Yes, this proposed "wrap" wrap sanitize is less strict when nothing is defined
as wrapping (i.e: missing `-fwrapv`). Should this not be the case?
In the same way, `signed-integer-overflow` is more strict without `-fwrapv` as
things are overflowing and not wrapping.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80089
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
