On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:36:20PM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> -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.
The problem is that if we start using it for ASan, it needs to have a
different default, because ASan wants to abort by default, while UBSan
recover by default. -fsanitize=kernel-address w (KASan) wants to recover
by default. So, the option is either to never support recover for
-fsanitize=address, for ubsan keep -fsanitize-recover (by default) as is
and for kasan use that same switch, or have separate flags.
Jakub
