https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67204
--- Comment #9 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #8) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7) > > I'm not saying that anyone should stop working on what they are doing to > > implement this, but if a volunteer appears (Smagnet?) and wants to work on > > this, why not allow them? Perhaps they can create better documentation than > > the official one. > It can make sense to create _some_ sanitizer-related docs in gcc. For > example clang has one: > http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html > Such page can give a "quick start" guide and also thoroughly document > gcc-specifics (e.g. attributes, macros, features, etc). But I don't think it > is a good idea to duplicate everything. Some people will look at the > "official" documentation and be confused, gcc-hosted docs will get outdated > in some ways as well. FYI this has already led to mismatches and user confusion several times. > And we are interested in improving the "official" docs. Maybe we need to > think about a clear way to document gcc- and clang-specific aspects, and > actually do that throughout the docs. > Sanitizers will move to github soon: > https://github.com/google/sanitizers > Then it will be easier to accept pull requests for docs changes. Perhaps GCC docs could be hosted on github as well and then (automatically) copied to GCC trunk during regular ASan merge process?
