[RFC] Sanitizers difference in between GCC and LLVM
Martin Liška
mliska@suse.cz
Wed Oct 18 09:16:00 GMT 2017
Hi.
I would like to use this thread to slightly describe differences in GCC and LLVM.
I compared options support by both and:
UBSAN:
1)
gcc: error: unrecognized argument to -fsanitize= option: ‘nullability-arg’
gcc: error: unrecognized argument to -fsanitize= option: ‘nullability-assign’
gcc: error: unrecognized argument to -fsanitize= option: ‘nullability-return’
I guess it's covered by -fsanitize=nonnull-attribute and -fsanitize=returns-nonnull-attribute.
One can't have in GCC a local variable with non-null attribute (nullability-assign), right?
2) unsigned-integer-overflow
As documented, not being a real UBSAN. Do we want that or seen as not useful?
3) function
Indirect function pointer comparison using RTTI in C++. Would it be useful? Ideas?
ASAN:
For ASAN, there's quite up-to-date page: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerClangVsGCC-(5.0-vs-7.1)
The page is quite up-to-date. Currently we should cover all what LLVM supports. Am I right? Or is there any interesting
feature we miss?
Thanks for ideas,
Martin
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list