Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Code refactoring related to -fsanitize=use-after-scope

On 02/15/2016 08:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I bet a nickel that this is triggered by the goto leading into those > variables' scope ("goto process_inner_tuple" at line 2038 in HEAD). > That probably bypasses the "unpoison" step. > > However, doesn't this represent a bug in the sanitizer rather than

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Code refactoring related to -fsanitize=use-after-scope

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-02-15 14:37:28 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >> I've been currently working on support of -sanitize=use-after-scope in the >> GCC compiler and >> I decided to use postgresql as my test-case. The sanitation poisons every >> stack variable at the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Code refactoring related to -fsanitize=use-after-scope

Hi, On 2016-02-15 14:37:28 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > I've been currently working on support of -sanitize=use-after-scope in the > GCC compiler and > I decided to use postgresql as my test-case. The sanitation poisons every > stack variable at the > very beginning of a function, unpoisons a

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Code refactoring related to -fsanitize=use-after-scope

Hello. I've been currently working on support of -sanitize=use-after-scope in the GCC compiler and I decided to use postgresql as my test-case. The sanitation poisons every stack variable at the very beginning of a function, unpoisons a variable at the beginning of scope definition and finally