patch: break into debugger on death in sanitizers

Kostya Serebryany kcc at
Fri Oct 25 11:52:28 PDT 2013

I am not opposed to this change, but I'd like to test it a bit more
carefully to make sure none of our users get angry on us for behavior
I'd suggest to put this sigtrap under a flag (off by default) and then flip
the default to true after a bit of testing.
We already have abort_on_error, may add sigtrap_on_error or some such.

(may not reply until Mon next time)

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at>wrote:

> Sigtrap, which seems less likely to cause deep surprise in the presence of
> signal handlers.
> On Oct 25, 2013 3:56 AM, "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at> wrote:
>> So this will change the default behavior from doing exit(1) to doing
>> abort(), right?
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at>wrote:
>>> Running sanitized code under gdb can be annoying because the program
>>> will print out its error then exit, instead of the usual behaviour when we
>>> get an abort() of stopping the program there and allowing the user to
>>> inspect its stack trace.
>>> Add a trap to the exit path in sanitizer_common. Please review!
>>> Nick
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list