From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12465 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2012 07:52:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 12408 invoked by uid 48); 14 Nov 2012 07:51:45 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:52:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01219.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-14 07:51:44 UTC --- Note that GCC doesn't perform any ASAN optimizations yet (if the same address is written or read several times in the same bb, it doesn't optimize away the tests). We plan to first switch to first expanding the shadow memory checks as simple builtins without control flow, performing optimizations on them and only later on (in fab pass?) to expand it to the longer sequences with control flow in them.