https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #55628|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #89 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Created attachment 55637 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55637&action=edit gcc14-bitint-wip.patch Updated patch with -fsanitize=undefined _BitInt support. Some of the runtime messages are inaccurate and some are totally incorrect, but I'm afraid I can't do much until libubsan adds support for _BitInt, which I've requested in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64100 For +-* overflow the messages look good until (inclusive) _BitInt(128) on 64-bit arches (or _BitInt(64) on 32-bit ones), larger print <unknown> instead of numbers and think it is unsigned integer overflow rather than signed (but I think that is better than what clang does when stuff just crashes with what it emits or prints random numbers). For / overflow, again up to _BitInt(128) it works fine, otherwise prints division by zero rather than minimum / -1. For shifts with non-mode precision _BitInts, even small ones, there are various inaccuracies, because libubsan think the mode precision is the precision of the type.