[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suppressing sanitizer in sha256.c
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: Suppressing sanitizer in sha256.c |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:18:44 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 |
On 04/03/2018 04:03 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 04/03/2018 01:47 PM, Tim Rühsen wrote:
>> This is expected behavior but still it rings the 'alarm bell'.
>
> My kneejerk reaction is that the code has well-defined behavior and I'd
> rather that developers didn't use -fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow.
> For Gnulib, that flag is more trouble than it's worth.
I can see the validity of claiming that signed integer overflow is
undefined behavior, but I thought the C standard was pretty clear that
unsigned integer overflow is well-defined and performs modulo
arithmetic. What are the clang developers using as their justification
for this warning? Paul is probably correct that the warning is a bug in
clang, if they can't back up their warning with an actual quote from the
C standard.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature