[cfe-dev] more --sanitize= flags

[Evgeniy Stepanov]

This whole -fsanitize= thing looks unorthodox and confusing to me. I
understand why me might want to merge all sanitizers under one switch, but
we don't need to put their suboptions there, too.
On Nov 6, 2012 11:58 PM, "Alexander Potapenko" <glider at google.com> wrote:

> -fsanitize=address,use-after-return sounds more like two distinct
> sanitizers than a sanitizer and an option, although this is very similar to
> the -Wl case.
> On Nov 6, 2012 10:53 PM, "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We need more clang flags in two categories:
>>    - flags that modify the behavior of asan/tsan/msan
>>    - flags that enable additional features of asan/tsan/msan
>>
>> As we just discussed with Richard Smith, the flags should probably look
>> like this:
>>
>> modify the behavior:
>>    -f[no-]sanitize-address-zero-base-shadow # zero base for asan, should
>> check that -pie is present, linux-only
>>    -f[no-]sanitize-memory-track-origins  # msan track-origins (once msan
>> is in trunk, of course)
>>
>> add additional features:
>>   -fsanitize=address,global-init-order,use-after-return,use-after-scope #
>> asan subphases, currently off by default.
>>
>> Does that sound good? Anything else?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --kcc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20121107/1ef8d2a6/attachment.html>