Re: address/leak sanitizer, somebody?

2015-04-14 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 14 Apr 2015 18:05:51 +0200, a écrit : Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 14 Apr 2015 17:59:40 +0200, a écrit : they have intimate knowledge about the operating system kernel they're running on, But isn't this needed only for tsan? More precisely, I see lsan only using

Re: address/leak sanitizer, somebody?

2015-04-14 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 14 Apr 2015 17:59:40 +0200, a écrit : they have intimate knowledge about the operating system kernel they're running on, But isn't this needed only for tsan? Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe.

Re: address/leak sanitizer, somebody?

2015-04-14 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:03:46 +0200, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@gnu.org wrote: Samuel Thibault, le Tue 14 Apr 2015 15:08:51 +0200, a écrit : For work I've been having a look at -fsanitize in gcc. It's not as powerful as valgrind, but it should provide very good feedback, and

Re: address/leak sanitizer, somebody?

2015-04-14 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 14 Apr 2015 15:08:51 +0200, a écrit : For work I've been having a look at -fsanitize in gcc. It's not as powerful as valgrind, but it should provide very good feedback, and apart from tsan, it seems to be very easy to port to other systems (basically tell the ucontext

address/leak sanitizer, somebody?

2015-04-14 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, For work I've been having a look at -fsanitize in gcc. It's not as powerful as valgrind, but it should provide very good feedback, and apart from tsan, it seems to be very easy to port to other systems (basically tell the ucontext layout, the rest is mostly glibc-generic actually), could