On 2016-09-28 00:02, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-07 17:05:10 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: >> I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any >> mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add >> support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks we >> already have for valgrind. > > Any plans to pick this up again?
Not remembering the context, I was initially confused about what exactly supposedly needs to be done in order to have ASan support, especially since I've been using it for a couple of years without any kind of modifications. Having read the whole thread now, I assume the discussion is now about getting MSan support, since apparently it's been already concluded that not much is needed for getting ASan support: >> I don't even see any need offhand for a configure flag or autoconf >> test. We could have a configure flag just to be consistent with >> valgrind but it seems pointless. If you're compiling with asan I don't >> see any reason to not use it. I'm building this to see if it works >> now. > > I agree. A flag guards Valgrind client requests, because we'd otherwise have > no idea whether the user plans to run the binary under Valgrind. For ASAN, > all relevant decisions happen at build time. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers