george.burgess.iv added a comment. > That said, one of the upsides of the current ubsan is that whether it will > produce a diagnostic is predictable (as long as you don't use uninitialized > data); you lose that to some extent with llvm.objectsize because it depends > on the optimizer.
True. If that's not desirable to have in `array-bounds`, we could potentially move these checks under `-fsanitize=object-size` instead. We'd just have to be careful about not emitting `object-size` and `array-bounds` checks for the same array access. https://reviews.llvm.org/D40940 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
