From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58353)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zyds8-0005t9-Ru
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:52:25 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zyds5-00057Y-1i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:52:24 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57898)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zyds4-00057H-Sa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:52:20 -0500
References: <1447754381-29882-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA_icu1TKwtxUHmJa6wtVNWRd6=+UxOa-g6VpZ66LdLVsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<564B0150.7030400@redhat.com> <564B046F.50205@redhat.com>
	<564B04D5.4000605@redhat.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <564B06E1.9000902@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:52:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <564B04D5.4000605@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 11:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/11/2015 11:41, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> 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.)
> 
> If it makes the change to HACKING more palatable, I'm all for it.

In general I'm not overly happy about this change :), but, if the
consensus is that we simply don't want to worry about this kind of UB in
QEMU, then let's actually prevent the compiler from exploiting the
standard's lenience, rather than just suppress the warning.

Thanks!
Laszlo