This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
- From: "howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:00:15 +0000
- Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |howarth at nitro dot
| |med.uc.edu
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu> 2013-02-12 14:00:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> #1 afaict, the asan pass happens in the middle of the gcc optimization flow.
> imho it should happen as late as possible so that the instrumentation
> happens on fully optimized code.
I can confirm this is the case from my experiments compiling xplor-nih with
-fsanitize=address. This code is habitually miscompiled by gfortran at the
higher optimizations levels. The addition of the -fsanitize=address flag to
the build suppresses most of the xplor-nih testsuite failures indicating that
it has changed the code optimization in gfortran. Is there any chance of moving
the asan pass or is that definitely stage 1 material?