search for: __asan_report_load4

...reported by address sanitizer. Therefore the problem of installing and running instrumented (R +) package code arises. Regrettably up to now, I found no way to use the address sanitizer, neither for a small C-example nor for a new compiled version of R. I get missing `__asan_report_store4' or `__asan_report_load4' messages. I'm working on Ubuntu 13.10 and tried gcc (4.8.1) and clang (3.2-7ubuntu1, based on LLVM 3.2). Does anyone have experiance with address sanitizer (especially with a self compiled R-version which is not in the standard location on the system)? Thanks in advance Wolfgang -- V...

...ar. W/o this flag the instrumentation will look like this: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 movq %rdi, %rax shrq $3, %rax movb 2147450880(%rax), %al testb %al, %al jne .LBB0_1 .LBB0_3: movl (%rdi), %eax popq %rcx retq .LBB0_1: movl %edi, %ecx andl $7, %ecx addl $3, %ecx cmpb %al, %cl jl .LBB0_3 # BB#2: callq __asan_report_load4 With this flag it will look like this: movq %rdi, %rbx callq __asan_load4 movl (%rbx), %eax Obviously, there is a cost in performance. Clang (and recent gcc) also have a convenience flag -fsanitize=kernel-address: movq %rdi, %rbx callq __asan_load4_noabort movl (%rbx), %eax If that does not sol...

Hi Kcc, I'm trying enabling the Asan in my firmware, but I find the asan instrumentation code size impact is too big for me. I just implement necessary firmware version runtime library functions (e.g. __asan_report_load8) with blank body firstly to pass the asan enabled build, but I find the new binary code size is already ~2.5 times as original one with asan disabled in GCC. I know Linux

I'm struggling to explain an ASAN report I'm now getting that I didn't get previously on the same code. In fact the report only happens with -O2 and not when I remove the -O flags which makes it hard to debug and makes me suspect it's dependent on exactly which instructions the code generation decides to access the bytes involved. Afaict the C code shouldn't be accessing the