From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56109)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zydi1-0005WS-6p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:41:57 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zydhx-0002nr-VL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:41:57 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46078)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zydhx-0002nk-Q0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:41:53 -0500
References: <1447754381-29882-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA_icu1TKwtxUHmJa6wtVNWRd6=+UxOa-g6VpZ66LdLVsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<564B0150.7030400@redhat.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <564B046F.50205@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:41:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <564B0150.7030400@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for 2.5] QEMU does not care about left
 shifts of signed negative values
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 11/17/15 11:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/11/2015 11:19, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> I think we should only take this patch if you can get a cast-iron
>> guarantee from both clang and gcc that they will never use this
>> UB to drive optimizations. As you say gcc already say this more or
>> less, but clang doesn't, and if they're warning about it that to
>> me suggests that they will feel freer to rely on the UB in future.
> 
> If and when this happens we will add "-fno-strict-overflow" for clang,
> just like we are using "-fno-strict-aliasing" already.

How about adding "-fwrapv -fno-strict-overflow" right now? (Spelling out
the latter of those explicitly for pointer arithmetic.)

>> GCC is not our only supported compiler; UB is a real thing that
>> compilers in general take advantage of; we should be trying to
>> reduce our reliance on UB, not carving out extra areas where we
>> feel free to use it.
> 
> We are already feeling free to use it.
> 
> Paolo
>