[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 --- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 20:21:02 UTC --- Author: hjl Date: Wed Nov 21 20:20:42 2012 New Revision: 193704 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193704 Log: Define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ for -fsanitize=address PR c/55397 * cppbuiltin.c (define_builtin_macros_for_compilation_flags): Define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ for flag_asan. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cppbuiltin.c
[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-21 20:28:52 UTC --- Fixed.
[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||konstantin.s.serebryany at ||gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com 2012-11-20 05:13:27 UTC --- Note that this will be incompatible with what clang uses (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html#has_feature) Clang will never use a CPP macro (I've lost this battle a year ago). Just FYI. I don't know how much compatibility we want and can achieve.
[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-20 05:23:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Note that this will be incompatible with what clang uses (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html#has_feature) Clang will never use a CPP macro (I've lost this battle a year ago). Just FYI. I don't know how much compatibility we want and can achieve. has feature will most likely not be implemented in GCC so CPP macro is correct for GCC. If clang wants to have a non-standard way of doing CPP macro for features, that is up to them.
[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dnovillo at google dot com --- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com 2012-11-20 05:30:59 UTC --- FTR: my conversation with clang on this topic. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.scm/42610 From Diego: I don't know of any current effort in this area for GCC. If __has_feature() is desirable, patches documenting and implementing it would be welcome. The GCC pre-processor is jointly maintained by all the FE maintainers. I would start there. If we end up implementing a macro, may I ask it to be named ADDRESS_SANITIZER? This name is already used in a few places (Chromium, WebKit, etc).
[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-20 05:37:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) If we end up implementing a macro, may I ask it to be named ADDRESS_SANITIZER? This name is already used in a few places (Chromium, WebKit, etc). It should have `_' prefix.
[Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 --- Comment #5 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com 2012-11-20 05:46:06 UTC --- Then it should probably *not* be named _ADDRESS_SANITIZER (imagine a user trying to understand why ADDRESS_SANITIZER works for him with clang, where he added -DADDRESS_SANITIZER=1 manually, and dpoes not work with gcc where he saw the documentation saying about _ADDRESS_SANITIZER) Maybe something with GCC in the name? _GCC_ADDRESS_SANITIZER?
