Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wjtZG_0zjgVt0_0JDZgq=xO4LHYAbH764HTQJsjHTq-oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bd43bd47c8eaa4c22c1a1549cee66f7ef960b1fc.camel@med.uni-goettingen.de>
 <CAHk-=whFMxks63sfMQ-0_YO1GsTmoLfsO4ciMtoiCHNgaG_+GA@mail.gmail.com> <979af7ae9b7e8baf080ef6f8d42d48d7f5d2c5b4.camel@tugraz.at>
In-Reply-To: <979af7ae9b7e8baf080ef6f8d42d48d7f5d2c5b4.camel@tugraz.at>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:12:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CANiq72k_PUBPVL1Fx4HLm_WO66RuSsi0oSsKRhssCYRNGbY84Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator
 after the loop
To:     Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 3:43 AM Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at> wrote:
>
> Roughly the same group of people / companies that
> write the compilers also control what goes into the
> standard. They then like to point to the standard

Indeed, at least to a substantial degree.

> For signed overflow, I am not entirely sure what the
> right choice is.  Wrapping for signed overflow also seems
> dangerous. I use UBsan to find such issues in my code, and
> this would not really work if signed overflow was defined
> to wrap.

UBsan and similar tooling may still be used to find whatever behavior
one wants, whether defined or not. UBSan already has non-UB checks.

Cheers,
Miguel