This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer
- From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:04:56 +0000
- Subject: [Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-59061-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #20 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I our simulation code, it looks like the overhead for leak checking is about
> 20%. I haven't done very careful measurements yet, since this is more or
> less what we're willing to pay to integrate the (very useful) feature in our
> testing setup.
that's with -fsanitize=address?
as I said, asan allocator uses more memory (redzones, quarantine)
and has extra overhead ([un]poisoning redzones, etc) compared to plain lsan.
So 20% would be quite expected.
Pure lsan should have smaller overhead.
We are not actively testing pure lsan on large things because
we are already testing all our large things with asan and we don't
want yet another build config.