From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414205-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17578 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2013 10:42:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 16217 invoked by uid 48); 5 Feb 2013 10:41:22 -0000
From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:42:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: kcc 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:
Message-ID: <bug-55309-4-c7yMfPww4Y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2


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

--- Comment #10 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-05 10:41:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> "464.h264ref with gcc loops forever, I did not investigate why."
> is PR53073 , you can use -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations to workaround the
> invalid code in SPEC.
Thanks. But then again we hit another bug in 464.h264ref.
So, if we want to run h264ref and perbmk w/o changing sources under gcc+asan
we need to have the blacklist functionality. 
(see the same links as above). 

==8720== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address
0x7fff625736a0 at pc 0x4e2a98 bp 0x7fff62573600 sp 0x7fff625735f8
READ of size 4 at 0x7fff625736a0 thread T0
    #0 0x4e2a97 in SATD
(benchspec/CPU2006/464.h264ref/run/run_base_ref_z.0000/h264ref_base.z+0x4e2a97)
    #1 0x4e47c0 in SubPelBlockMotionSearch
(benchspec/CPU2006/464.h264ref/run/run_base_ref_z.0000/h264ref_base.z+0x4e47c0)
...
Address 0x7fff625736a0 is located at offset 96 in frame <SATD> of T0's stack:
  This frame has 1 object(s):
    [32, 96) 'd'