[clang] [Clang] Overflow Pattern Exclusions (PR #100272)

[Vitaly Buka via cfe-commits]

vitalybuka wrote:

> > Before reland, please include me into review I'd like to understand why `-fsanitize-pattern-exclusion=all` is better than something like `-fno-sanitize=overflow-pattern-all`
> 
> The latter doesn't make sense to me. `no-sanitize` takes a list of sanitizers to completely disable. The pattern exclusion option is also listing sanitizers for altering their behavior. I find the option naming in the existing patch intuitive.

Can we split `-fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow` into -fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow-patternA,unsigned-integer-overflow-patternB,unsigned-integer-overflow-patternC...' ?

Then it's quite intuitive to disable them with `no-sanitize`.

> > Sorry, but I am not sure why this didn't show up my https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+review-requested%3A%40me+sort%3Aupdated-desc I wanted to review this patch.
> 
> Did I do something wrong with my PR or fork settings? I am not sure why you weren't notified I left you on the CC and reviewer list. Thanks for your comments -- working on fixing the test cases right now.

I am not sure, maybe you didn't click "re-request review", next to reviewer. I don't really understand GitHub algorithm about hiding from active reviews.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100272