On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:26:39AM -0700, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> > I think we can summarize:
> > * the current option -fsanitize-recover is misleading; it's really
> > -fubsan-recover
> > * we need a way to selectively enable/disable recovery for different
> > sanitizers
> >
> > The most promininet solution seems to be
> > * allow -fsanitize-recover=tgt1,tgt2 syntax
> > * -fsanitize-recover wo options would still mean UBSan recovery
> >
> > The question is what to do with -fno-sanitize-recover then.
>
> We can make -f(no-)?sanitize-recover= flags accept the same values as
> -f(no-)?sanitize= flags. In this case,
>
> "-fsanitize-recover" will be a deprecated alias of
> "-fsanitize-recover=undefined", and
> "-fno-sanitize-recover" will be a deprecated alias of
> "-fno-sanitize-recover=undefined".
> If a user provides "-fsanitize-recover=address", we can instruct the
> instrumentation pass to
> use recoverable instrumentation.
Would we accept -fsanitize-recover=undefined
-fno-sanitize-recover=signed-integer-overflow
as recovering everything but signed integer overflows, i.e. the decision
whether to recover a particular call would check similar bitmask as
is checked whether to sanitize something at all?
Jakub
