[cfe-dev] more --sanitize= flags
eugenis at google.com
Tue Nov 6 13:08:49 PST 2012
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:
>> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev