[Bug sanitizer/58411] no_sanitize_undefined function attribute

2013-09-18 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58411 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/58411] no_sanitize_undefined function attribute

2013-09-18 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58411 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Sep 18 10:01:40 2013 New Revision: 202682 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202682&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-18 Marek Polacek PR sanitizer/58411 * doc/extend.texi

[Bug sanitizer/58411] no_sanitize_undefined function attribute

2013-09-15 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58411 --- Comment #3 from Jan Smets --- Eg, these attributes are useful too I think: no_sanitize => disable ALL sanitize checks sanitize -> enable ALL sanitize checks no_sanitize_{address,undefined,vla...} => disable the specific check sanitize_{addre

[Bug sanitizer/58411] no_sanitize_undefined function attribute

2013-09-14 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58411 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug sanitizer/58411] no_sanitize_undefined function attribute

2013-09-13 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58411 --- Comment #2 from Jan Smets --- Please also think of the other -fsanitize= options.

[Bug sanitizer/58411] no_sanitize_undefined function attribute

2013-09-13 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58411 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|