[PATCH] -fcatch-undefined-behavior with trapping implementation

[Will Dietz]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Will Dietz <wdietz2 at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> Glad this is going in, although I would prefer to see compiler-rt
>> become more widely used (shipped by default, etc) instead.  However,
>> that's not the case yet and it's good to make these checks available
>> to users that either don't want to or can't use it (kernel work, no
>> compiler-rt readily available, etc).
>>
>> One thought: is there anything to be done to better clarify the
>> different roles played by -f[no-]sanitize-recover and
>> -f[no]-sanitize-undefined-trap-on-error? This seems like it could be
>> awfully confusing.  Would -fsanitize-undefined-standalone or similar
>> fit this and better identify the reasons one might use the
>> -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error flag?
>
> I like the synergy between -fsanitize=undefined-trap and
> -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error, but if you can suggest an equally
> harmonious pair of option names which better explain the purpose,
> that'd be great!
>

Hmm, nope I don't have a better naming suggestion.  Thanks, carry on! :)

~Will