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 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 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.
> >