On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Alexander Potapenko ramosia...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
We just need a separate error reporting function that'll be called
exclusively from interceptors. It doesn't have to be noreturn, because the
interceptors themselves aren't.
Sounds like a match
We just need a separate error reporting function that'll be called
exclusively from interceptors. It doesn't have to be noreturn, because the
interceptors themselves aren't.
On Sep 26, 2014 8:52 AM, 'Alexey Samsonov' via address-sanitizer
address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Alexander Potapenko
ramosian.gli...@gmail.com wrote:
We just need a separate error reporting function that'll be called
exclusively from interceptors. It doesn't have to be noreturn, because the
interceptors themselves aren't.
yep
On Sep 26, 2014 8:52 AM,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Alexander Potapenko
ramosian.gli...@gmail.com wrote:
We just need a separate error reporting function that'll be called
exclusively from interceptors. It doesn't have to be noreturn, because the
interceptors themselves aren't.
Sure. The relevant parts are
Some time ago I've been thinking about adding a flag for each
interceptor that disables checks in that interceptor similar to
replace_intrin flag.
Using suppressions for that sounds more flexible, but we must make
sure the users do not try to suppress errors in instrumented code.
(For example we
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:16 AM, 'Alexander Potapenko' via
address-sanitizer address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com wrote:
Some time ago I've been thinking about adding a flag for each
interceptor that disables checks in that interceptor similar to
replace_intrin flag.
Using suppressions for that
Can you add a new suppression kind that would disable certain interceptors?
E.g. the following line in suppressions file:
interceptor:strcasecmp
will disable the checks in this interceptor (in case of ASan it would turn
COMMON_INTERCEPTOR_READ_RANGE to nop).
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:49 PM,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is what we want.
I'd rather suppress by one of the frames in the stack where strcasecmp is
called
(This may, of course, be the #0 frame with strcasecmp)
Sure. But it would be
+tetra2005
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Kuba Brecka kuba.bre...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to explore the possibilities of extending ASan to be able to
continue execution after an error is found and a report printed out. I
understand that the fact that ASan is currently
We probably can reuse lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_suppressions.h to
suppress errors that come from the interceptors...
Thoughts?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:39 PM, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via address-sanitizer
address-sanitizer@googlegroups.com wrote:
+tetra2005
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Kuba
10 matches
Mail list logo
