Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> writes: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, Sam James wrote: >> Request that reporters try `-fsanitize=address,undefined` rather than >> just `-fsanitize=undefined` when reporting bugs. We get invalid bug >> reports which ASAN would've caught sometimes, even if it's less often >> than where UBSAN would help. > > I don't have a strong opinion on this and would prefer someone else to > chime in. That said, if we don't hear from someone else by early next > week, please go ahead and push.
Done now - sorry, this had slipped my mind. > > > Just one (naive) question: Are there instances where -fsanitize=undefined > may be available/working where -fsanitize=address,undefined may be not? > > If so, perhaps provide both invocations as in > <code>-fsanitize=undefined</code> or <code>-fsanitize=address,un... > ? > > Your call; just a thought. > It's a good question - AFAIK there aren't any such cases. It is possible, but rather remote, that the instrumentation from one *but not* the other inhibits a compiler bug in some cases (or just user UB). I can include both if you think that's worth doing, but I tend to think it'll make the text too verbose. > Gerald > > >> htdocs/bugs/index.html | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/htdocs/bugs/index.html b/htdocs/bugs/index.html >> index c7d2f310..d6556b26 100644 >> --- a/htdocs/bugs/index.html >> +++ b/htdocs/bugs/index.html >> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ try a current release</strong> or development snapshot.</p> >> with <code>gcc -Wall -Wextra</code> and see whether this shows anything >> wrong with your code. Similarly, if compiling with >> <code>-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations</code> >> -makes a difference, or if compiling with <code>-fsanitize=undefined</code> >> +makes a difference, or if compiling with >> <code>-fsanitize=address,undefined</code> >> produces any run-time errors, then your code is probably not correct. >> </p>
