https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
--- Comment #8 from lo1ol ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua3TiOSwVTI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
Boris Kolpackov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boris at kolpackov dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
lo1ol changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkh199740 at mail dot ru
--- Comment #6 from lo1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> But why do you want to use -static-libasan ? Just link it dynamically...
For one thing it can speed up code by avoiding PLT calls.
> --dynamic-list is hard to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But why do you want to use -static-libasan ? Just link it dynamically...
--dynamic-list is hard to maintain, aren't there hundreds of symbols that are
exported from libasan?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I think we can only recommend not to do that
For legacy codebase (e.g. when sanitizing full distributions) you often don't
have a choice.
> implying -Wl,-E from -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think we can only recommend not to do that, or suggest users to consider
-Wl,-E. The linker automatically makes symbols mentioned in dependent
libraries exported from binaries, but e.g. implying -Wl,-E fro
