This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: .cfi in sanitizer code
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>, Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google dot com>, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:16:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: .cfi in sanitizer code
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGQ9bdyf5sYnJeBmeiDENc9hFG5BZ8h3vTgAqFQjxr4WP2v2Yw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:09:56PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> This is a maintenance problem because we can not test if we broke
> something during development.
> e.g. clang doesn't seem to support -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm
It does, at least both clang 3.3 (from Fedora 19) and clang
3.4 r194685 (which I've built myself some time ago just to look at the
use-after-return etc. sanitization).
> I can commit a change similar to your cfi-related changes
> (guarded by SANITIZER_DONT_USE_CFI_ASM instead of
> __GCC_HAVE_DWARF2_CFI_ASM), but the problem will arise again
Why? Is it so hard to remember that when you add .cfi_* directives
they should be guarded by that macro? Even if the patch author
forgets about that, patch reviewer should catch that.
Jakub