https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The thing is that if you poison at the end of destructor, you need to unpoison
it again somewhere, except for file scope variables that when they are
destructed supposedly can't be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
The thing is that if you poison at the end of destructor, you need to
unpoison it again somewhere, except for file scope variables that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
There is some minimal support in -fsanitize=vptr, but that catches only
destructed objects with virtual methods (by disabling the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is some minimal support in -fsanitize=vptr, but that catches only
destructed objects with virtual methods (by disabling the clobbers and clearing
the vptr).
Other than that,
