> Right, and that of course could be a performance penalty as well.
>
>>
>> > Then, cases like this:
>> >
>> > int glob;
>> > int get_glob() {
>> > return glob;
>> > }
>> >
>> > can be handled trivially as it's known that sanitizing address of a
>> > variable
>> > referenced by name is a no-op--even for automatic locals, not just
>> > globals.
>>
>> Automatic local variables may be accessed out of their bounds or after
>> the execution has left their scope.
>
>
> Yes, but not when they are accessed through their names, that is, without
> taking their addresses--implicitly or explicitly.
I believe we don't instrument accesses to non-address-taken automatic
local variables at -O1 and higher.
At least, in most cases.
As for globals, we have to instrument some of the scalar global
accesses to catch
https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/InitializationOrderFiasco
--kcc
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"address-sanitizer" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to address-sanitizer+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
