[PATCHv3][PING] Enable -fsanitize-recover for KASan

Alexey Samsonov samsonov@google.com
Mon Sep 29 22:37:00 GMT 2014


(resending in plain-text mode)

-fasan-recover doesn't look like a good idea - for instance, in Clang,
we never use "?san"
in flag names, preferring -fsanitize-whatever. What's the rationale
behind splitting
-fsanitize-recover in two flags (ASan- and UBSan- specific)?
Is there no way to keep a single -f(no-)sanitize-recover for that
purpose? Now it works
only for UBSan checks, but we may extend it to another sanitizers as well.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
<konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com> wrote:
> +Alexey Samsonov
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:21:11PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>> >>This patch enables -fsanitize-recover for KASan by default. This causes
>>> >>KASan to continue execution after error in case of inline
>>> >>instrumentation. This feature is needed because
>>> >>- reports during early bootstrap won't even be printed
>>> >>- needed to run all tests w/o rebooting machine for every test
>>> >>- needed for interactive work on desktop
>>>
>>> This is the third version of patch which renames -fsanitize-recover to
>>> -fubsan-recover and introduces -fasan-recover (enabled by default for
>>> KASan). It also moves flag handling to finish_options per Jakub's request.
>>
>> As the -fsanitize-recover option comes from clang originally, I think
>> this needs coordination with them (whether clang will also rename the
>> option), and certainly keep -fsanitize-recover as a non-documented
>> compat option alias for -fubsan-recover.
>> So, can you please talk to the clang folks about it?
>>
>>         Jakub



-- 
Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list