This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][PR sanitizer/64354] Define __SANITIZE_THREAD__ and __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ macros if corresponding switches are enabled.
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Maxim Ostapenko <m dot ostapenko at samsung dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at gmail dot com>, Slava Garbuzov <v dot garbuzov at samsung dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:36:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][PR sanitizer/64354] Define __SANITIZE_THREAD__ and __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ macros if corresponding switches are enabled.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <573CA781 dot 50505 at samsung dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:33:53PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> when compiling with -fsanitize=address we define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
> macros, but we don't do this for -fsanitize=thread and -fsanitize=undefined.
> Perhaps we should be more symmetric here and define corresponding
> __SANITIZE_THREAD__ and __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ macros respectively?
>
> I added two simple test cases to c-c++-common/{ub, t}san/ directories that
> just verify if __SANITIZE_THREAD__ (__SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__) is defined. Is
> that a proper way how we check that the macros defined correctly? Does this
> patch looks reasonable?
I can understand __SANITIZE_THREAD__, but I fail to see what
__SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ would be good for, especially when it is not just
a single sanitizer, but dozens of them.
Jakub