search for: asanstacktrac

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "asanstacktrac".

Did you mean: asanstacktrace
2011 Dec 27
4
[LLVMdev] -f[no-]omit-frame-pointer
...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 > _______________________...
2011 Dec 28
0
[LLVMdev] -f[no-]omit-frame-pointer
...t; > > > 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 inconsistent :) __buil...
2011 Dec 27
0
[LLVMdev] -f[no-]omit-frame-pointer
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
2011 Dec 28
0
[LLVMdev] -f[no-]omit-frame-pointer
...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 usesĀ __builtin_return_address(0) to get the full stack trace. > SeeĀ 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 return address from t...
2011 Dec 27
4
[LLVMdev] -f[no-]omit-frame-pointer
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. > >