This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
On 11/20/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Doesn't this save us, since the bottom frame in the backtrace will always
> be an ASAN functionand the frame we're interested in will always be higher
> in the backtrace?
>
> I guess I'm wondering, in this specific use case, do you think using
> the CFA to compare against is safe or not?
Yes it saves us. I believe using the value of __builtin_dwarf_cfa from
the outermost ASAN function will reliably match the SP value of the
interesting user function outer of ASAN.
r~
- References:
- [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- From: Konstantin Serebryany
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- From: Konstantin Serebryany
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- From: Konstantin Serebryany
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- From: Konstantin Serebryany
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}