On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Yuri Gribov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The easiest solution is probably to hide current warning under verbosity > 0 >> >> A check under verbosity > 0 is almost ("but not quite entirely") >> useless because verbosity > 0 >> is not a normal mode of operation. > > Well, Asan team typically asks users to provide verbose reports in > case of error. > If the check is there, we have a chance to detect it straight away > instead of guessing ("try LD_PRELOAD", "try instrumenting your > executable", "try -static-libasan").
Right. But what if we ask some one to run with verbosity=1 and then [s]he hits this warning -- how do we know if the warning is valid if we already know that it is broken. > >> So, I think we should either fix the check or remove it. > > After spending too much time debugging symbol resolution conflicts, > I'd try my best to have _some_ checking in runtime. > > One option (proposed by Jakub) would be to check that libasan precedes > libc.so, libpthread.so, etc. > The code is going to be somewhat ugly though... Let's try and see the code? > > -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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
