[cfe-dev] Dataflow Sanitizer ABI list question

[Peter Collingbourne]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 06:58:53PM -0500, Frederico Araujo wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> When using dfsan's ABI list to specify the behavior of non-instrumented
> libraries, is this the correct way to tell dfsan that a particular function
> "foo" should follow the "discard" semantics?
> 
> fun:foo=uninstrumented
> fun:foo=discard
> 
> Do I always have to add the "uninstrumented" entry? I tried adding only the
> one with the discard specification, but then, compilation fails with the
> error "undefined reference to dfs$foo".

Yes, you always need the "uninstrumented" entry at the moment. The idea was
that the "uninstrumented" entries could come from one source (e.g. automatic
object file scanning), and be combined with manually written entries from
another source.

This is admittedly a little confusing, and there's no technical reason
why DFSan should need the "uninstrumented" entries. It may be better to
make "uninstrumented" optional if there is already another entry for the
function. I'll have a think about it.

Thanks,
-- 
Peter