From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id CEE0E3858D35; Thu,  7 Sep 2023 20:53:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CEE0E3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694119984;
	bh=hovkwdzl+C86s7+pn49oazqadks7IfS6SpAqEj1UzLg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DjWzbCJK8GHGaTys9b4o/nRal7/qNyr2zzVahy1Y2Ic38xmJ0funeA7ONbHpPrakQ
	 qqaQilO0kFhc3QVmKRobDTCE0s97RVhSv9Au2+m+xPyEe36WPSi1KA5NtYTtFcZ788
	 cSsePdB/+aBVidurpAfWRYOjniI2Ns9pDiU2MNUw=
From: "qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/102317] signed integer overflow sanitizer cannot work
 well with -fno-strict-overflow
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 20:53:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102317-4-stIaeado4t@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102317-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102317-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102317

--- Comment #12 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #11)
> The trouble with "optimize" is that it just doesn't work. The kernel has
> banned its use because it results in all other optimization options being
> forgotten for the function in question.

How about Jacub's another suggestion in comment#10:

"If you don't want to use optimize attribute, there is always the option to
just do the arithmetics in unsigned types in the few selected functions whe=
re
you don't want the sanitization"?

is it possible to use "unsigned" integer instead of "signed" integer for the
cases you want the "wrap around" behavior when overflow?=20

if not, what's the major issue with this workaround?=