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

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061

--- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #24)
> Perhaps you use strict_init_order=true option (e.g.
> ASAN_OPTIONS=check_initialization_order=true:report_globals=3:
> strict_init_order=true)? 

strict_init_order=true/false doesn't make a difference, here. If either
check_initialization_order=true or strict_init_order=true (or both true) - and
report_globals > 0, I get an ASAN backtrace, otherwise not.

However, it seems as if you now get the same backtrace as I get - even though
you seem to need strict_init_order=true in addition.

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