From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52463)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1ZyfCX-0001B0-KX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:17:34 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1ZyfCS-00025l-Hn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:17:33 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35971)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1ZyfCS-00025g-Bs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:17:28 -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>
	<87h9kkx2dp.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<CAFEAcA-m6WmZzCh_3Ruzu=jzaNKhzTJJQWwY_E6hGyYH=orYSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <564B1AD5.2080009@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:17:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-m6WmZzCh_3Ruzu=jzaNKhzTJJQWwY_E6hGyYH=orYSA@mail.gmail.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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 11/17/15 13:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 November 2015 at 11:59, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.)
>>
>> One of them, not both.
>>
>> Quote gcc manual:
>>
>>     Using -fwrapv means that integer signed overflow is fully defined:
>>     it wraps.  When -fwrapv is used, there is no difference between
>>     -fstrict-overflow and -fno-strict-overflow for integers.
> 
> I thought this too, but note that it says "for integers". As Laszlo
> says, the reason to provide both is to get the -fno-strict-overflow
> behaviour for pointer arithmetic, which is not affected by -fwrapv.

Correct, that's what I meant.

> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
>