[Bug c/55397] New: [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[Bug c/55397] New: [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

             Bug #: 55397
           Summary: [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: hjl.tools@gmail.com


See:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01601.html

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |konstantin.s.serebryany at
                   |                            |gmail dot com

--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> 2012-11-20 05:13:27 UTC ---
Note that this will be incompatible with what clang uses
(http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html#has_feature)
Clang will never use a CPP macro (I've lost this battle a year ago). 

Just FYI. I don't know how much compatibility we want and can achieve.

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-20 05:23:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note that this will be incompatible with what clang uses
> (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html#has_feature)
> Clang will never use a CPP macro (I've lost this battle a year ago). 
> 
> Just FYI. I don't know how much compatibility we want and can achieve.

has feature will most likely not be implemented in GCC so CPP macro is correct
for GCC.  If clang wants to have a non-standard way of doing CPP macro for
features, that is up to them.

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dnovillo at google dot com

--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> 2012-11-20 05:30:59 UTC ---
FTR: my conversation with clang on this topic. 
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.scm/42610

>From Diego: 
I don't know of any current effort in this area for GCC.  If 
__has_feature() is desirable, patches documenting and implementing it 
would be welcome.  The GCC pre-processor is jointly maintained by all 
the FE maintainers.  I would start there.


If we end up implementing a macro, may I ask it to be named ADDRESS_SANITIZER? 
This name is already used in a few places (Chromium, WebKit, etc).

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-11-20 05:37:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 
> If we end up implementing a macro, may I ask it to be named ADDRESS_SANITIZER? 
> This name is already used in a few places (Chromium, WebKit, etc).

It should have `_' prefix.

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

--- Comment #5 from Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> 2012-11-20 05:46:06 UTC ---
Then it should probably *not* be named _ADDRESS_SANITIZER 
(imagine a user trying to understand why ADDRESS_SANITIZER works for him 
with clang, where he added -DADDRESS_SANITIZER=1 manually, and dpoes not work
with gcc where he saw the documentation saying about _ADDRESS_SANITIZER)

Maybe something with GCC in the name?  _GCC_ADDRESS_SANITIZER?

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[hjl at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org <hjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-21 20:21:02 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 21 20:20:42 2012
New Revision: 193704

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193704
Log:
Define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ for -fsanitize=address

    PR c/55397
    * cppbuiltin.c (define_builtin_macros_for_compilation_flags):
    Define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ for flag_asan.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cppbuiltin.c

[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0

--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-11-21 20:28:52 UTC ---
Fixed.