Hello everybody, > Usually, ubsan-related questions get answered at llvm...@lists.llvm.org > <javascript:>, we we can reply too :) > first thanks for the quick responses. (We had some national holidays going on here, so my answer comes quite late - sorry for that.)
fsanitize-blacklist is a compile-time suppression mechanism -- the code in > the blacklist is not instrumented. > This would have been preferable, but AFIACT, gcc does not support this > flag. (correct me if I am wrong). > Still a WONTFIX :( (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61978) > I am not sure I understand your question about > UBSAN_OPTIONS=suppressions=MyUBSan.supp > If you can provide a small example where something does not work as > expected (with the fresh clang) we can take a look. > Note that UBSAN_OPTIONS=suppressions=... is a run-time option and if you > hit the bug you are going to suppress very often > the suppression will slow down the run significantly. > > --kcc > It's not a "does not work as expected", more a "I don't understand what's going on in the sourcecoude". If I got that right, there's the suppression context, initialized from the file on ubsan_init() or rather InitializeSuppressions(). However the resultung suppression_ctx object is only used by "__ubsan::IsVptrCheckSuppressed". So I therefore don't really understand how the suppression is working for the other functions. This understanding however might be crucial for me to utilize it to suppress the lasting ubs. The slowdown could be acceptable, so I'm not worrying about that currently. Thanks, Ilya -- 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/d/optout.
