Re: Issue 344 in address-sanitizer: Clang driver incorrectly handles -Wl,-r flag

2014-09-25 Thread address-sanitizer
Comment #12 on issue 344 by tetra2...@gmail.com: Clang driver incorrectly handles -Wl,-r flag https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=344 This level of control is generally impossible in an arbitrary C/C++ project out there. One better pray that the build system at

Re: AddressSanitizer and issue suppression

2014-09-25 Thread 'Alexander Potapenko' via address-sanitizer
Some time ago I've been thinking about adding a flag for each interceptor that disables checks in that interceptor similar to replace_intrin flag. Using suppressions for that sounds more flexible, but we must make sure the users do not try to suppress errors in instrumented code. (For example we

Re: AddressSanitizer's allocator

2014-09-25 Thread 'Dmitry Vyukov' via address-sanitizer
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Jonas Wagner jonas.wag...@epfl.ch wrote: Dear AddressSanitizer developers, I'm thinking about ways to optimize the performance of ASan's allocator. There are a few benchmarks where a large fraction of the overhead comes from the allocator and the quarantine

Re: AddressSanitizer and issue suppression

2014-09-25 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:16 AM, 'Alexander Potapenko' via address-sanitizer address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com wrote: Some time ago I've been thinking about adding a flag for each interceptor that disables checks in that interceptor similar to replace_intrin flag. Using suppressions for that

Re: AddressSanitizer's allocator

2014-09-25 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:49 AM, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via address-sanitizer address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Jonas Wagner jonas.wag...@epfl.ch wrote: Dear AddressSanitizer developers, I'm thinking about ways to optimize the performance of ASan's allocator.

Re: AddressSanitizer and issue suppression

2014-09-25 Thread 'Alexey Samsonov' via address-sanitizer
Can you add a new suppression kind that would disable certain interceptors? E.g. the following line in suppressions file: interceptor:strcasecmp will disable the checks in this interceptor (in case of ASan it would turn COMMON_INTERCEPTOR_READ_RANGE to nop). On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:49 PM,

Re: Issue 345 in address-sanitizer: Use Linux madvise(MADV_DONTDUMP) to exclude ASan shadow regions from core dumps

2014-09-25 Thread address-sanitizer
Comment #5 on issue 345 by dvyu...@google.com: Use Linux madvise(MADV_DONTDUMP) to exclude ASan shadow regions from core dumps https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=345 Can somebody please summarize whether here is something actionable for me to do or not (I am

Re: Issue 345 in address-sanitizer: Use Linux madvise(MADV_DONTDUMP) to exclude ASan shadow regions from core dumps

2014-09-25 Thread address-sanitizer
Updates: Owner: konstant...@gmail.com Comment #6 on issue 345 by konstant...@gmail.com: Use Linux madvise(MADV_DONTDUMP) to exclude ASan shadow regions from core dumps https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=345 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You

Re: AddressSanitizer and issue suppression

2014-09-25 Thread 'Alexey Samsonov' via address-sanitizer
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think this is what we want. I'd rather suppress by one of the frames in the stack where strcasecmp is called (This may, of course, be the #0 frame with strcasecmp) Sure. But it would be