On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:21:29PM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> 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".
That would change behavior, e.g. for
-fsanitize=undefined,address -fsanitize-recover
would suddenly enable recovery from asan errors while previously
they wouldn't be recovering.
GCC has not shipped with the -fsanitize-recover flag yet (we have just
vendor backport of it), so if you don't mind changing behavior for clang
users, I can live with that. Would the default still be
-fsanitize-recover=undefined,kernel-address -fno-sanitize-recover=address ?
Jakub
