From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53414) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQrlN-0004OT-A0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 02:22:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQrlM-0003uO-LI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 02:22:05 -0500 From: Markus Armbruster References: <56B10B86.4020505@redhat.com> <56B126B6.3070701@redhat.com> <56B12AD7.90802@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 08:21:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <56B12AD7.90802@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Tue, 2 Feb 2016 23:16:55 +0100") Message-ID: <87powe5kdn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] iotest 013 failure under clang -fsanitize=undefined List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Qemu-block , qemu-devel , Laszlo Ersek , John Snow Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 02/02/2016 22:59, Eric Blake wrote: >> I'd be okay with this patch, if you want to make it a formal >> submission, and if no one else chimes in with any opinion other >> than disgust at clang's shenanigans. > > I'm not okay with the patch. What's wrong with > -fno-sanitize=float-divide-by-zero? GCC accepts it, the only > difference is in having a more useful default. Agreed. Do not complicate the code to placate some tool's silliness when you can tell the tool to stop being silly instead.