This is the mail archive of the 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: [PATCHv3][PING] Enable -fsanitize-recover for KASan

Speaking of plain -f(no-)sanitize-recover - it would probably be
better to change the semantics of this flag,
so that "-f(no-)?sanitize-recover" means "enable(disable) recovery for
all sanitizers enabled at this point".
That is, it would be pretty much like -Werror flag.

For example,
"-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address -fno-sanitize-recover"
would mean "run UBSan and ASan and don't recover from errors".

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:36:34AM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
>> > Would we accept -fsanitize-recover=undefined -fno-sanitize-recover=signed-integer-overflow
>> > as recovering everything but signed integer overflows, i.e. the decision
>> > whether to recover a particular call would check similar bitmask as
>> > is checked whether to sanitize something at all?
>> Yes, the logic for creating a set of recoverable sanitizers should be
>> the same as the logic for creating a set of enabled sanitizers.
> LGTM, will hack it up soon in GCC then.
>         Jakub

Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA

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