John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote: > Hi GCC developers, > > Andrew> Isn't [(1 << 31)] UB on a 32-bit machine as well? Looks like > integer overflow to me. > > Challenge for the GCC developers: > > I would love if there was a switch like this: -fundefined-behavior-segv > > Such that if the source touches upon undefined behavior, it does: > 1) compiler error > 2) runtime SEGV > > Preferably the first, but in some unavoidable cases the second. > > Also, as far as I am concerned, with that switch enable, it would be > plenty-fine-okay if the code had to be heavily instrumented (hence possibly > huge* performance penalty) to check ranges and such so that at runtime the > undefined behavior code incurs a SEGV. > > Furthermore, a -fimplementation-defined-behavior-segv would likewise be > nice. > > I know... GCC is open source. Go ahead, add it myself, and submit the > patch. :-) It could be done in some cases, but in others would be very hard. Andrew.
