On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:03:30PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 04:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Depends on how exactly it is defined. It could be enabling just its own
> > sanitizer bit and nothing else, then users would need to use
> > -fsanitize=address,use-after-scope
> > or
> > -fsanitize=kernel-address,use-after-scope
>
> I'm inclined to the second option, where the new option would be automatically
> added if a ADDRESS sanitizer is enabled (SANITIZE_{USER,KERNEL}_ADDRESS):
>
> Is it acceptable behavior?
To me, yes. But, the question is if it is acceptable to clang too.
Limiting it to a param means it will be command line option incompatible
between clang and gcc.
Jakub
