https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106469
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- "An unsigned overflow" does not exist. That is the point here. And that is why this sanitizer is bogus and should never be used. And yes overflow wrapping is sometimes a bug in the code but if the code depends on the wrapping behavior then it is wrong to complain about it. C and c++ requires wrapping behavior for unsigned types. This option is bogus and should be removed even from llvm.