http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55521
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #18 from Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com> 2012-12-03
04:08:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Revised patch posted at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00084.html. Also tested with a
> build of xplor-nih (a complex mix of c, c++ and fortran code) which has always
> had optimization issues with FSF gcc (as xplor-nih has its own heap memory
> manager routines in fortran). A build of xplor-nih with -fsanitize=address
> produced 41 failures out of 154 tests but all of the failures emitted
> AddressSanitizer output (often unknown-crash on address) rather than
> segfaulting.
I guess it's asan signal handler transforms paging faults into "unknown-crash
on address".
But the real asan reports, do they make sense? I mean is it real bugs in user
code, or some nonsense?
