[Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's

[kcc at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309

--- Comment #28 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-08 09:13:27 UTC ---
> Could we on x86_64 think about mem_to_shadow(x) (x >> 3) + 0x7fff8000 (note,
> not |, but +)?

That sounds compelling, but I afraid we may have binaries with 2G of
text+globals. (!!)
Still, worth investigating. 

I agree with your arguments about not everyone willing to use -pie, 
but many large projects already do this anyway (e.g. Chrome)