> But ubsan is a new feature in 4.9, and it is a bootstrap failure > with that feature.
I will leave it up to the release manager to decide if they want this non-regression patch applied before the branch, then. > This is for the host libiberty only, and only when gcc is configured > a certain way. The intent is to have libiberty that is going to be > linked into all the build and host tools instrumented, so that we > actually catch bugs in libiberty or bugs in host/build tools calling > libiberty functions as much as possible, but for the lto-plugin, > which is dlopened by the linker which we don't have a control on, we > need host libiberty without the address sanitization because > otherwise it would only work properly if the linker itself has been > address sanitized. So, if libiberty isn't built with sanitization, it would still *work* but not be instrumented?
