On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Yuri Gribov tetra2...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
Are there plans to extend -fsanitize-recover beyond UBSan? It seems
that adding this functionality to e.g. ASan would be trivial.
I do not plan to add such functionality to asan and I am strongly
opposed to it.
It
What are your reasons?
Collect more memory errors from a single run. E.g. I have an
embedded system at hand which requires at least 20m for typical
fix-compile-run cycle (and some steps like reflashing the device are
manual). Being able to fix more than one error at once would
significantly
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Yuri Gribov tetra2...@gmail.com wrote:
What are your reasons?
Collect more memory errors from a single run. E.g. I have an
embedded system at hand which requires at least 20m for typical
fix-compile-run cycle (and some steps like reflashing the device are
there are downsides: one bug may trigger another report
Doesn't UBSan have the same problem?
the user will spend time investigating more reports than needed.
True but that would be a concious trade-off.
It will create more problems to users and developers than it will solve.
Agreed, it
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Yuri Gribov tetra2...@gmail.com wrote:
there are downsides: one bug may trigger another report
Doesn't UBSan have the same problem?
Maybe, but ubsan reports
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:42 AM, 'Evgeniy Stepanov' via address-sanitizer
address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Yuri Gribov tetra2...@gmail.com
wrote:
