Re: Fix runtime errors from -fsanitize=undefined

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-07-05 01:33, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I just saw this proposal. The undefined behavior in question is strictly
> > academic. These changes do remove the need for new users to discover
> > -fno-sanitize=nonnull-attribute, but they make the code longer and no clearer.
> > Given the variety of code this touches, I expect future commits will
> > reintroduce the complained-of usage patterns, prompting yet more commits to
> > restore the invariant achieved here. Hence, I'm -0 for this change.
>
> This sanitizer has found real problems in the past. By removing these
> trivial issues we can then set up a build farm animal or similar to
> automatically check for any new issues.

Has it found one real problem that it would not have found given
"-fno-sanitize=nonnull-attribute"? I like UBSan in general, but I haven't
found a reason to prefer plain "-fsanitize=undefined" over
"-fsanitize=undefined -fno-sanitize=nonnull-attribute".