On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Yuri Gribov <[email protected]> wrote: >> there are downsides: one bug may trigger another report > > Doesn't UBSan have the same problem?
Maybe, but ubsan reports totally different kinds of bugs. Note that I am not opposed to -fsanitize-recover in tsan and msan (it's there already). > >> the user will spend time investigating more reports than needed. > > True but that would be a concious trade-off. > >>>> It will create more problems to users and developers than it will solve. >>> >>> Agreed, it may cause false positives, duplicated reports, etc. But it >>> does not have to be enabled by default. >> >> These, and many more. > > Just FYI this works quite well for us in practice (we use patched > gcc). E.g. I was able to detect and fix a dozen of bugs in large app > in 3 or 4 iterations instead of 10. That's the price for not having extra complexity. --kcc > >> I remain unconvinced... > > I was expecting this :) > > -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.
