I am not opposed to this change, but I'd like to test it a bit more carefully to make sure none of our users get angry on us for behavior change. I'd suggest to put this sigtrap under a flag (off by default) and then flip the default to true after a bit of testing. We already have abort_on_error, may add sigtrap_on_error or some such.
(may not reply until Mon next time) On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote: > Sigtrap, which seems less likely to cause deep surprise in the presence of > signal handlers. > On Oct 25, 2013 3:56 AM, "Kostya Serebryany" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So this will change the default behavior from doing exit(1) to doing >> abort(), right? >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Running sanitized code under gdb can be annoying because the program >>> will print out its error then exit, instead of the usual behaviour when we >>> get an abort() of stopping the program there and allowing the user to >>> inspect its stack trace. >>> >>> Add a trap to the exit path in sanitizer_common. Please review! >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
