On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:34:12PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
Reviving this thread.
What do you think of the following idea:
1) we keep -fsanitize-recover and -fno-sanitize-recover as
deprecated synonyms
for -f(no-)?sanitize=ubsan-like checks
2) we introduce -fsanitize-recover=list and
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Alexey Samsonov samso...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:39:47PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
That is not what I think we've agreed on and what is implemented
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:39:47PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
That is not what I think we've agreed on and what is implemented in GCC.
-fsanitize-recover only enables recovery of the undefined plus
undefined-like
Hi Jakub,
I've just prepared a patch implementing -fsanitize-recover=list in
Clang (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6302), writing here to make sure we're
on
the same page w.r.t. flag semantics:
* -fsanitize-recover: Enable recovery for all checks enabled by
-fsanitize= which support it.
*
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:40:00PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
I've just prepared a patch implementing -fsanitize-recover=list in
Clang (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6302), writing here to make sure we're
on
the same page w.r.t. flag semantics:
* -fsanitize-recover: Enable recovery for all
As for the generated code, I'm at the stage where I can implement the
following: if a single UBSan hander is used to report multiple error
kinds (__ubsan_handle_type_mismatch is used for
-fsanitize=null,alignment,object-size), and these kinds have different
recoverability, then we emit two
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:40:00PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
I've just prepared a patch implementing -fsanitize-recover=list in
Clang (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6302), writing here to make sure we're
on
the same
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:39:47PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
That is not what I think we've agreed on and what is implemented in GCC.
-fsanitize-recover only enables recovery of the undefined plus
undefined-like sanitizers, in particular it doesn't enable recover from
kernel-address,
On 10/17/2014 08:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:47:07PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
On 09/30/2014 09:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
LGTM, will hack it up soon in GCC then.
Do you plan to work on this in near future?
Here is only very lightly tested patch, didn't get to
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:59:06AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
(in some cases for
the kind that is enabled with -fsanitize= only, in other cases
perhaps for something covering that and some other options),
Depending on what? I've just passed contents of -fsanitize= to
-fsanitize-recover=,
On 10/17/2014 08:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:47:07PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
On 09/30/2014 09:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
LGTM, will hack it up soon in GCC then.
Do you plan to work on this in near future?
Here is only very lightly tested patch, didn't get to
11 matches
Mail list logo
