Hey,
I am sorry. Due to your comment I spent some time the last days, digging
deeper and it turns out the ubsan-message pointed to something else -
everything fine with the packed structures. Can't believe I failed to see
that.
However, I still don't understand how the SuppressionContext works
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, 'Ilya' via address-sanitizer
wrote:
>
>> Worst case you could wrap problematic code in #ifdef
>> __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ and provide dedicated implementation. What's
>> the problem with packed stuff though?
>
>
> Yep, but I'd
> Worst case you could wrap problematic code in #ifdef
> __SANITIZE_UNDEFINED__ and provide dedicated implementation. What's
> the problem with packed stuff though?
>
Yep, but I'd like to avoid that if possible :)
The packed structures cause "misaligned pointer access".
--
You received
Hello everybody,
> Usually, ubsan-related questions get answered at llvm...@lists.llvm.org
> , we we can reply too :)
>
first thanks for the quick responses. (We had some national holidays going
on here, so my answer comes quite late - sorry for that.)
fsanitize-blacklist is a
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM, 'Alexey Samsonov' via address-sanitizer <
address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Konstantin Serebryany <
> konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:03 AM, 'Ilya' via address-sanitizer <
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:03 AM, 'Ilya' via address-sanitizer <
address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> first of all: thanks for reading. I have questions regarding the
> UndefinedBehaviourSanitizer and didn't know where else to post them.
>
Usually, ubsan-related
Hello everybody,
first of all: thanks for reading. I have questions regarding the
UndefinedBehaviourSanitizer and didn't know where else to post them.
I am currently working on an embedded system project, porting the UBSan RTL
(GCC) to work with our stuff. After lots of ripping out this works,