search for: asan_stack

...> > What would be the best fix for asan? > > Can you be explicit what you need to asan? Just the equivalent of > __builtin_return_address(0) or do you really need a full stack trace? > asan-rt uses __builtin_return_address(0) to get the full stack trace. See compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_stack.cc (AsanStackTrace::FastUnwindStack) It checks the current thread's stack bounds to avoid a wild dereference. Asan does not use unsafe __builtin_return_address(N, N>0), although it would be nice if __builtin_return_address(N, N>0) had safer semantics. --kcc > > Joerg > _____...

...ix for asan? > > > > Can you be explicit what you need to asan? Just the equivalent of > > __builtin_return_address(0) or do you really need a full stack trace? > > > > asan-rt uses __builtin_return_address(0) to get the full stack trace. > See compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_stack.cc (AsanStackTrace::FastUnwindStack) > It checks the current thread's stack bounds to avoid a wild dereference. > > Asan does not use unsafe __builtin_return_address(N, N>0), although it > would be nice if __builtin_return_address(N, N>0) had safer semantics. That's inco...

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:10:54PM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > What would be the best fix for asan? Can you be explicit what you need to asan? Just the equivalent of __builtin_return_address(0) or do you really need a full stack trace? Joerg

...he best fix for asan? >> >> Can you be explicit what you need to asan? Just the equivalent of >> __builtin_return_address(0) or do you really need a full stack trace? > > > asan-rt uses __builtin_return_address(0) to get the full stack trace. > See compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_stack.cc (AsanStackTrace::FastUnwindStack) > It checks the current thread's stack bounds to avoid a wild dereference. > I think it does not. What you're doing there is traversing the stack frames. __builtin_return_address(0) is generated for each function individually. It just reads the ret...

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:48:51PM +0200, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev wrote: > [ CCed all people who were involved in this thread ] > > Hi Tom, > > personally, I am interested to test the prebuilt-toolchains for > Ubuntu/xenial alias 16.04 LTS and Debian/Jessie v8.5.0 AMD64. > The available toolchains are incomplete and thus useless. > > Just as a fact: There is still no

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It looks like the default for -fomit-frame-pointer has recently changed > from > > "no" to "yes at O1 and higher", but I did not see the commit. > >