This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [PATCH] Add support for -fno-sanitize-recover and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error (PR sanitizer/60275)


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:30:40AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
>> > This patch adds two new options (compatible with clang) which allow
>> > users to choose the behavior of undefined behavior sanitization.
>> >
>> > By default as before, all undefined behaviors (except for
>> > __builtin_unreachable and missing return in C++) continue after reporting
>> > which means that you can get lots of runtime errors from a single program
>> > run and the exit code will not reflect the failure in that case.
>> >
>> > With this patch, one can use -fsanitize=undefined -fno-sanitize-recover,
>> > which will report just the first undefined behavior and then exit with
>> > non-zero code.
>>
>> Would it make sense for this to be the default for bootstrap-ubsan,
>> so that the bootstrap fails on undefined behaviour?
>
> Perhaps eventually, but is current bootstrap-ubsan really ubsan error free
> on at least the major targets?  I've made some efforts towards that goal on
> x86_64-linux, but haven't tried bootstrap-ubsan recently.

What's the overhead with bootstrap-ubsan ?

Ramana

>
>         Jakub


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