+Evgeniy On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > It may be helpful to document the following in msan's official page: > 1) success stories (chrome land?)
The page https://code.google.com/p/memory-sanitizer/wiki/FoundBugs may need some updates and it should be linked from https://code.google.com/p/memory-sanitizer/wiki/MemorySanitizer > 2) runtime overhead comparison with valgrind Yep. We have the fresh data, need to publish in wiki. --kcc > > 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.
