From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23211 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2014 23:17:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23199 invoked by uid 89); 29 Sep 2014 23:17:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:17:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8TNHRsQ019978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:17:27 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-78.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.78]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8TNHPdA026349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:17:26 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s8TNHNRL022549; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:17:23 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s8TNHK5o022548; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:17:20 +0200 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:17:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Alexey Samsonov Cc: Konstantin Serebryany , Yury Gribov , GCC Patches , Dmitry Vyukov , Andrey Ryabinin , Konstantin Khlebnikov Subject: Re: [PATCHv3][PING] Enable -fsanitize-recover for KASan Message-ID: <20140929231720.GI17454@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <54095E23.6050900@samsung.com> <5416B3A2.4050200@samsung.com> <54299507.7090800@samsung.com> <20140929174357.GH17454@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg02591.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:36:20PM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > -fasan-recover doesn't look like a good idea - for instance, in Clang, we > never use "?san" > in flag names, preferring -fsanitize-whatever. What's the rationale behind > splitting > -fsanitize-recover in two flags (ASan- and UBSan- specific)? > Is there no way to keep a single -f(no-)sanitize-recover for that purpose? > Now it works > only for UBSan checks, but we may extend it to another sanitizers as well. The problem is that if we start using it for ASan, it needs to have a different default, because ASan wants to abort by default, while UBSan recover by default. -fsanitize=kernel-address w (KASan) wants to recover by default. So, the option is either to never support recover for -fsanitize=address, for ubsan keep -fsanitize-recover (by default) as is and for kasan use that same switch, or have separate flags. Jakub