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

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

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

--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-22 13:09:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> 400.perlbench fails with a global-buffer-overflow which clang does not detect.
> I did not investigate why. It could be a gcc false positive or clang false
> negative.

On which file/function the global-buffer-overflow was?  Can you send me the
asan diagnostics?

> 464.h264ref is VERY slow, I did not look why.

And it didn't fail on that:
    for (dd=d[k=0]; k<16; dd=d[++k])
    {
      satd += (dd < 0 ? -dd : dd);
    }
or have you fixed that up in your SPEC sources?