On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Yes, but...
>> (I'm still not quite sure what this option does, and whether we
>> could say "poison and unpoison it", for example? Can you advise?)
> I'm sending enhancement of that. Basically: direct poisoning = emitting
> instructions that touch shadow memory vs. runtime callbacks = function
> that does that :)
>
> I welcome help with that.
How about the following, Martin, which tries to combine our two
sets of changes (and adds some editorial changes)?
Let me know whether this looks fine to you, and I'll commit.
Gerald
2017-02-05 Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com>
Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz>
* doc/invoke.texi (use-after-scope-direct-emission-threshold):
Fix typos and grammar, use active voice, and clarify.
Index: doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/invoke.texi (revision 245559)
+++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -10478,9 +10478,9 @@
@option{--param asan-instrumentation-with-call-threshold=0}.
@item use-after-scope-direct-emission-threshold
-If size of a local variable in bytes is smaller or equal to this number,
-direct instruction emission is utilized to poison and unpoison local variables.
-Default value in 256.
+If the size of a local variable in bytes is smaller or equal to this
+number, directly poison (or unpoison) shadow memory instead of using
+run-time callbacks. The default value is 256.
@item chkp-max-ctor-size
Static constructors generated by Pointer Bounds Checker may become very
