> 2) Currently the top frame in the allocation stack is a function in ASan > runtime, so I assume you mean malloc_context_size=2.
Right. > I agree it's not wise to call _UnwindBacktrace if we're interested only in > the top frame. > ... > I don't like the idea of > introducing a special case for malloc_context_size=1 in our malloc/new > interceptors So just to clarify: you are ok with special-casing malloc_context_size=2 but not malloc_context_size=1 ? > Do you have > any stats/justifications for that proposal? E.g. is ASan unwinder visible in > profile for malloc-intensive application even for small values of > malloc_context_size? I did run malloc-intensive code a couple of months ago with malloc contexts turned on and it was horribly slow. Unfortunately I don't remember whether I tried to reduce default size or just turned it off alltogether... -Y -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "address-sanitizer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
