пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 20:46, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:11:52PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > > Has it ever reported a *real* issue ? I mean, we've been working around > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/96 > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/104 > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/106 > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/111 > > Well only two above are the address sanitizer, one is valgrind and the > other one is the thread sanitizer. > > > and I hope that William Lallemand also found and fixed about 5 bugs > > detected by travis + asan > > Maybe. > > In that case at least we should run it at -O1. It's at -O2 that it > produces bogus code from what I'm seeing. And given that the docs > also suggest -O1 to get a usable backtrace, it's possible that it's > rarely tested in combination with -O2. But anyway I really *hate* > seeing compilers silently emit bad code, especially when it happens > when asking them to detect more anomalies! >
I may try to report it. Is there small repro code ? > > Willy >
