http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #22 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #21) > (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #20) > > > I our simulation code, it looks like the overhead for leak checking is > > > about > > > 20%. I haven't done very careful measurements yet, since this is more or > > > less what we're willing to pay to integrate the (very useful) feature in > > > our > > > testing setup. > > > > that's with -fsanitize=address? > > No, full asan is about 100% (or more) overhead for us (I guess the overhead > depends on the optimization level, but roughly speaking). This is only the > leak checking (as obtained by only linking with -fsanitize=address and > exporting the flag). That's what I meant. -fsanitize=address applied at compile time adds expensive instrumentation. -fsanitize=address applied at link time adds only expensive asan's allocator. -fsanitize=leak will add a cheaper allocator (but less tested)