[LLVMbugs] [Bug 24285] Sanitizer options are spelled differently between gcc and clang

[bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org]

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24285

Richard Smith <richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk
         Resolution|---                         |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #1 from Richard Smith <richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk> ---
GCC inherited these options from Clang, so if there's a "drop-in replacement"
issue, you're filing it with the wrong compiler ;) Also, Clang trunk *does*
accept the GCC spelling, as you call it.

FYI: "undefined" and "undefined-trap" used to refer to different groups of
sanitizers (where "undefined-trap" is the subset of "undefined" that is
compatible with -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error). We used to reject
combinations of options that would request trapping and also request sanitizers
incompatible with trapping. We've since changed our interface so that we'll
just turn off the incompatible sanitizers when
-fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error is specified (if they're enabled via a
sanitizer group), and they now mean the same thing. (We still error if an
incompatible sanitizer is explicitly enabled, so -fsanitize=vptr
-fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error is still rejected.)

[Also, -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error is deprecated; the new syntax is
-fsanitize-trap=undefined (though GCC might not yet accept that).]

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20150728/af303e4d/attachment.html>