(resending in plain-text mode) -fasan-recover doesn't look like a good idea - for instance, in Clang, we never use "?san" in flag names, preferring -fsanitize-whatever. What's the rationale behind splitting -fsanitize-recover in two flags (ASan- and UBSan- specific)? Is there no way to keep a single -f(no-)sanitize-recover for that purpose? Now it works only for UBSan checks, but we may extend it to another sanitizers as well.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: > +Alexey Samsonov > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:21:11PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote: >>> >>This patch enables -fsanitize-recover for KASan by default. This causes >>> >>KASan to continue execution after error in case of inline >>> >>instrumentation. This feature is needed because >>> >>- reports during early bootstrap won't even be printed >>> >>- needed to run all tests w/o rebooting machine for every test >>> >>- needed for interactive work on desktop >>> >>> This is the third version of patch which renames -fsanitize-recover to >>> -fubsan-recover and introduces -fasan-recover (enabled by default for >>> KASan). It also moves flag handling to finish_options per Jakub's request. >> >> As the -fsanitize-recover option comes from clang originally, I think >> this needs coordination with them (whether clang will also rename the >> option), and certainly keep -fsanitize-recover as a non-documented >> compat option alias for -fubsan-recover. >> So, can you please talk to the clang folks about it? >> >> Jakub -- Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA
