Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <[email protected]> writes: > Maybe something like this? The idea is to point people to ubsan_minimal > instead of assuming that ubsan isn't supported at all. I can't see > a better place to document this. > > For more context: UBSan is supposed to catch undefined behavior at > runtime and to react by printing an error message and/or aborting, etc. > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html > > Greg, still ok with this version? Thoughts? > > Index: clang-local.1 > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/cvs/src/share/man/man1/clang-local.1,v > retrieving revision 1.22 > diff -u -p -p -u -r1.22 clang-local.1 > --- clang-local.1 7 Sep 2021 17:39:49 -0000 1.22 > +++ clang-local.1 16 Feb 2022 22:37:05 -0000 > @@ -93,6 +93,12 @@ option to treat signed integer overflows > prevent dangerous optimizations which could remove security critical overflow > checks. > .It > +The base system ships support for the ubsan_minimal sanitizer runtime > +but not for the default ubsan runtime.
I'd phrase it a bit differently, but OK either way. +The base system includes the ubsan_minimal sanitizer runtime +but not the fully-featured ubsan runtime. > +See the documentation for the > +.Fl fsanitize-minimal-runtime > +flag. > +.It > The > .Xr malloc 3 , > .Xr calloc 3 ,
