From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8463 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2013 09:13:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 8251 invoked by uid 48); 8 Feb 2013 09:13:30 -0000 From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:13:00 -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: 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00764.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #28 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-08 09:13:27 UTC --- > Could we on x86_64 think about mem_to_shadow(x) (x >> 3) + 0x7fff8000 (note, > not |, but +)? That sounds compelling, but I afraid we may have binaries with 2G of text+globals. (!!) Still, worth investigating. I agree with your arguments about not everyone willing to use -pie, but many large projects already do this anyway (e.g. Chrome)