4 ms·
However it also prevents "abort on overflow" implementations from being conforming, which look like a much better way of finding actual overflow bugs in the cod
by caf 8y ago
However it also prevents "abort on overflow" implementations from being conforming, which look like a much better way of finding actual overflow bugs in the code.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y agoThat's a question of static vs. dynamic analysis for bug detection. Which one(s) is/are most useful depends on the user's needs.
- simias 8y agoStatic analysis was always possible, dynamic isn't if you want to remain standard-compliant and overflow is defined. That being said I think it's a rather weak justification for making overflow UB, after all if you want to trap on overflows wouldn't want to catch unsigned overflow as well?
- mort96 8y agoDo such implementations currntly only abort on signed overflow and not on unsigned overflow? Aborting on unsigned overflow is currently not conforming, is it?
- scatters 8y agoIt is not conforming, which is why `-fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow` is not enabled by default by ubsan. However it is available if you want to try it.