This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: msan and gcc ?
- From: Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google dot com>
- To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google dot com>
- Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>, VandeVondele Joost <joost dot vandevondele at mat dot ethz dot ch>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "dvyukov at gcc dot gnu dot org" <dvyukov at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jakub at redhat dot com" <jakub at redhat dot com>, "kcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <kcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:46:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: msan and gcc ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <908103EDB4893A42920B21D3568BFD9315115A1A at MBX23 dot d dot ethz dot ch> <CACT4Y+a1B=epexGa0y0baESRKgpqC5r1T8gW91xRM8_4aW=zgw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAN=P9pi60ukXrdqhxWMwx=+fzwBGoC+Q_s6nkffGuTyFzoX9yg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZKVs2Okw2WFP_d8Ab4mDJa4O5ipQaXSwj97prFGEwOxAg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Xinliang David Li <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It may be helpful to document the following in msan's official page:
> 1) success stories (chrome land?)
The page https://code.google.com/p/memory-sanitizer/wiki/FoundBugs
may need some updates and it should be linked from
> 2) runtime overhead comparison with valgrind
Yep. We have the fresh data, need to publish in wiki.
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kostya Serebryany <email@example.com> wrote:
>> [as text for real this time]
>> Sanitizer compiler module sizes in LLVM (in lines):
>> 1823 AddressSanitizer.cpp
>> 2780 MemorySanitizer.cpp
>> 564 ThreadSanitizer.cpp
>> Also note, that msan is the hardest to deploy among others sanitizers
>> because it requires to compile *everything*,
>> including libc++/libstdc++ and other system libs.
>> We've managed to do that for large projects like Chromium, LLVM, GCC,
>> and a few even larger ones,
>> and it was certainly worth it. Having msan in GCC would be nice, but
>> it is lots of work.
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, VandeVondele Joost
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> I've noticed that gcc includes a msan_interface.h file, and I'm wondering if this implies that memory sanitizer is already part of gcc. If not, are there plans to port this useful looking tool to gcc during the current stage 1 ?
>>> No, msan is not part of gcc. And I am not aware of any plans to port
>>> msan to gcc.
>>> Note that msan's compiler pass is the most involved one as compared to