On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:34:12PM -0800, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> Reviving this thread.
>
> What do you think of the following idea:
> 1) we keep "-fsanitize-recover" and "-fno-sanitize-recover" as
> deprecated synonyms
> for "-f(no-)?sanitize=<ubsan-like checks>"
> 2) we introduce -fsanitize-recover=<list> and
> -fno-sanitize-recover=<list>, where list may contain
> specific sanitizers ("address") or group of sanitizers ("undefined").
> 3) we introduce group of sanitizers called "all", which is, well, "all
> available sanitizers". It can *not* be
> used in -fsanitize=all flag, but can be used to easily disable all
> previously enabled sanitizers ("-fno-sanitize=all"),
> or to enable/disable recovery for all enabled sanitizers
> ("-fsanitize-recover=all" / "-fno-sanitize-recover=all").
So in esence a new group (like undefined) that is forbidden for -fsanitize=
option, but allowed for all the others? Sounds fine to me.
Can one still mix it with others (of course, it doesn't make much sense,
but would mean fewer exceptions in the option parser and thus more easily
understandable), like
-fno-sanitize=enum,all,bool
or do you prefer to only allow it as the sole argument of those options?
Jakub
