Speaking of plain -f(no-)sanitize-recover - it would probably be better to change the semantics of this flag, so that "-f(no-)?sanitize-recover" means "enable(disable) recovery for all sanitizers enabled at this point". That is, it would be pretty much like -Werror flag.
For example, "-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize=address -fno-sanitize-recover" would mean "run UBSan and ASan and don't recover from errors". On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:36:34AM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote: >> > Would we accept -fsanitize-recover=undefined >> > -fno-sanitize-recover=signed-integer-overflow >> > as recovering everything but signed integer overflows, i.e. the decision >> > whether to recover a particular call would check similar bitmask as >> > is checked whether to sanitize something at all? >> >> Yes, the logic for creating a set of recoverable sanitizers should be >> the same as the logic for creating a set of enabled sanitizers. > > LGTM, will hack it up soon in GCC then. > > Jakub -- Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA
