This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCHv3][PING] Enable -fsanitize-recover for KASan
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google dot com>
- Cc: Yury Gribov <y dot gribov at samsung dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>, Andrey Ryabinin <a dot ryabinin at samsung dot com>, Konstantin Khlebnikov <k dot khlebnikov at samsung dot com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 07:58:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCHv3][PING] Enable -fsanitize-recover for KASan
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140929231720 dot GI17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGSYnCPAN83v+JOyw-jMLUEE2YjaNQykdTCG4rdd=o_ieC4vFA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGQ9bdyWWNMt4m9jO2N1nzvVFjVuT1zbyey362WvnMxJZmNkBw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140930054027 dot GJ17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <542A56C0 dot 2030506 at samsung dot com> <CAGSYnCNTqXyWTHQERJe1t2uiNmOYGTMcU761Zs8N1DxUpZQnYw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140930173340 dot GI1986 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGSYnCMCMUPhttwyPMjSmpiim2U26cD6ef7sc9KdP9tRkZu7uQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140930173913 dot GJ1986 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGSYnCNQ32xANX=+T2UzP0HSUjQg0gYmu4WijHV+hpzFdcaBCg at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:21:29PM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> 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".
That would change behavior, e.g. for
would suddenly enable recovery from asan errors while previously
they wouldn't be recovering.
GCC has not shipped with the -fsanitize-recover flag yet (we have just
vendor backport of it), so if you don't mind changing behavior for clang
users, I can live with that. Would the default still be
-fsanitize-recover=undefined,kernel-address -fno-sanitize-recover=address ?