On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yes, I think so. -fsanitize-recover was not documented in Clang user manual. > Would the default still be > -fsanitize-recover=undefined,kernel-address -fno-sanitize-recover=address ? Yes. -- Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA
