It may be helpful to document the following in msan's official page: 1) success stories (chrome land?) 2) runtime overhead comparison with valgrind
David On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kostya Serebryany <k...@google.com> wrote: > [as text for real this time] > Sanitizer compiler module sizes in LLVM (in lines): > 1823 AddressSanitizer.cpp > 2780 MemorySanitizer.cpp > 564 ThreadSanitizer.cpp > Also note, that msan is the hardest to deploy among others sanitizers > because it requires to compile *everything*, > including libc++/libstdc++ and other system libs. > We've managed to do that for large projects like Chromium, LLVM, GCC, > and a few even larger ones, > and it was certainly worth it. Having msan in GCC would be nice, but > it is lots of work. > > --kcc > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, VandeVondele Joost >> <joost.vandevond...@mat.ethz.ch> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've noticed that gcc includes a msan_interface.h file, and I'm wondering >>> if this implies that memory sanitizer is already part of gcc. If not, are >>> there plans to port this useful looking tool to gcc during the current >>> stage 1 ? >> >> Hi, >> >> No, msan is not part of gcc. And I am not aware of any plans to port >> msan to gcc. >> Note that msan's compiler pass is the most involved one as compared to >> asan/tsan.
