https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Agree with Jakub that if really not necessary, I wouldn't complicate
> libsanitizer.
My point was that we won't need to complicate libsanitizer --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The dynamic offset code has the problem that a) it is usually larger b) usually
slower c) ABI incompatible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think nothing prevents us from trying several ranges, the question is whether
upstream guys will accept this...
I've just noticed that the code for dynamic shadow offset is already present in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't it possible to just add yet another range (like we already have Low and
High and sometimes Medium memory and their corresponding shadows and gaps) if
asan runtime determines some region clash?
