<html>
    <head>
      <base href="https://bugs.llvm.org/">
    </head>
    <body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
        <tr>
          <th>Bug ID</th>
          <td><a class="bz_bug_link 
          bz_status_NEW "
   title="NEW - clang incorrectly implements inc/dec?"
   href="https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39519">39519</a>
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Summary</th>
          <td>clang incorrectly implements inc/dec?
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Product</th>
          <td>clang
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Version</th>
          <td>trunk
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Hardware</th>
          <td>PC
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>OS</th>
          <td>Linux
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Status</th>
          <td>NEW
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Severity</th>
          <td>enhancement
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Priority</th>
          <td>P
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Component</th>
          <td>Frontend
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Assignee</th>
          <td>unassignedclangbugs@nondot.org
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Reporter</th>
          <td>lebedev.ri@gmail.com
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>CC</th>
          <td>llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, richard-llvm@metafoo.co.uk
          </td>
        </tr></table>
      <p>
        <div>
        <pre><a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D53949#1282884">https://reviews.llvm.org/D53949#1282884</a>
@regehr
The C99 standard (6.5.3.1.2) appears to be very clear on this point: "The
expression ++E is equivalent to (E+=1)."

[17:52:50] <TNorthover> LebedevRI: John Regehr is right.
[17:53:32] <TNorthover> It also says "See the discussions of additive operators
for information on [...] conversions [...]".
[17:53:37] <LebedevRI> TNorthover: so clang is implementing inc/dec incorrectly
[17:54:25] <AaronBallman> LebedevRI: yeah, I agree with John on that

<a href="https://godbolt.org/z/qd-QV4">https://godbolt.org/z/qd-QV4</a>
clang clearly does not do promotions in the c++; case.

The question at hand is:
* signed char c = 127; c++;
  Is this UB? UBSan does not catch it.
* unsigned char c = 255; c++;
  Is this (not ub!) unsigned integer overflow?
  Integer sanitizer does not catch it.

If these aren't ub/overflows, then the computation should be done in some
promoted type?
If the computation is not done in promoted type, then conversion sanitizer will
not catch it either.</pre>
        </div>
      </p>


      <hr>
      <span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>

      <ul>
          <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
      </ul>
    </body>
</html>