From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115720 invoked by alias); 10 May 2016 15:15:23 -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 115563 invoked by uid 89); 10 May 2016 15:15:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:760, H*Ad:D*samsung.com, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit 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; Tue, 10 May 2016 15:15:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF667D0D6; Tue, 10 May 2016 15:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.17]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u4AFF3MB025028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 May 2016 11:15:04 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u4AFF13s023751; Tue, 10 May 2016 17:15:01 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u4AFEwrf023750; Tue, 10 May 2016 17:14:58 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:15:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= Cc: Yury Gribov , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope Message-ID: <20160510151458.GO28550@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <572C7A3E.4000905@suse.cz> <572C848E.9020705@samsung.com> <20160506123857.GI26501@tucnak.zalov.cz> <572CA8B6.4040203@samsung.com> <20160506143931.GL26501@tucnak.zalov.cz> <5731F842.5020907@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5731F842.5020907@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00715.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:03:30PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 05/06/2016 04:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Depends on how exactly it is defined. It could be enabling just its own > > sanitizer bit and nothing else, then users would need to use > > -fsanitize=address,use-after-scope > > or > > -fsanitize=kernel-address,use-after-scope > > I'm inclined to the second option, where the new option would be automatically > added if a ADDRESS sanitizer is enabled (SANITIZE_{USER,KERNEL}_ADDRESS): > > Is it acceptable behavior? To me, yes. But, the question is if it is acceptable to clang too. Limiting it to a param means it will be command line option incompatible between clang and gcc. Jakub