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.

Reply via email to