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

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:
> 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
> -fsanitize=undefined,address -fsanitize-recover
> 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.

Yes, I think so. -fsanitize-recover was not documented in Clang user manual.

>  Would the default still be
> -fsanitize-recover=undefined,kernel-address -fno-sanitize-recover=address ?


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]