This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer


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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]