This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?


On 1/14/20 4:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 04:15:54PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
On 1/14/20 3:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
But then the compiler should just fail if you mix the two, rather than
emitting something that doesn't work at all.
Or better fix the design, so that it can grok an endbr64 together with
the following jump as another magic.

Sure. One can make an error when these 2 options are mixed together.
So the question still remains opened, do we want to implement the
sanitizer feature?

IMHO not for GCC 10, for GCC 11, it really sounds too hackish, so unsure.

That's my impression as well that the selected approach is quite a hack.
So unless somebody is really interested I'm not planning to work
on that for GCC 11.

Martin

It should at least cover more than one arch and have these issues like CET
etc. discussed upstream.

	Jakub



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