> Why not use -Wl,--dynamic-linker for this? Well, one of the goals of > the sanitizer tools is ease of use. It would not be user friendly to > require the user to supply the correct path to the dynamic loader > (which can vary depending on the platform) in order to enable > full-process compile-time instrumentation. One could also consider > infrastructure which would cause -fsanitize=* options to imply an > appropriate runtime sysroot, for which the ability to specify the > runtime sysroot would be an important prerequisite.
Having instrumented versions of libc would be awesome! I guess the name of the libraries itself can be backed in to -fsanitize=*. So for example the driver would pass -lasan-c to the linker for example. For the linker search path, the existing logic should be sufficient. The issue is how should we search for the dynamic linker. Some notes * We should not assume it is not in a system directory. Now that some BSD use clang as their system compiler they might be interested in having instrumented libc's available. * Can we just search a path relative to the driver install location in addition to system directories? This would be similar to how we look for libstdr++ for example. If those don't work, I think my only remaining objection to this patch is the option name sounds a bit too generic. What about dyld-path or even sanitazer-libc-path? Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
