[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0518aa2c0eba3079a0455ed1c76805bc@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:43:56 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: clang -faddress-sanitizer vs. -fsanitize=address (was: new clang 3.2 warnings)
On 20 Jan, 2013, at 12:18 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 11:00 AM, magnum wrote:
>> On 20 Jan, 2013, at 10:55 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 Jan, 2013, at 10:38 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
>>>> clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-faddress-sanitizer'
> [...]
>>>> But when I change the option name in Makefile, I get
>>>> clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-fsanitize=address'
>>>> instead, for 2.9 and for 3.1.
>>>>
>>>> This is bad. May be HAVE_CLANG_3_2 is a good enough solution right now?
>>>> How widespread is clang 3.2? Fedora 18 still uses 3.1.
>>>
>>> Bull's clang is 3.0-6ubuntu3. It doesn't seem to understand either of the variants.
>>
>> No, wait. The message "argument unused during compilation" just tells us that option should be in LDFLAGS only, not CFLAGS. So Bull's clang does support -fsanitize-address. I'll commit a patch.
>
> According to http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html, the
> -fsanitize=address option has to be used for compilation and for
> linking. May be clang 2.9 and 3.0 just don't support -faddress-sanitizer
> correctly.
> The renaming of -faddress-sanitizer to -fsanitize=address for clang
> versions >= 3.2 seems to be a separate issue.
Oh, and my patch used -fsanitize-address instead of -fsanitize=address. That was just wrong, then. I thought I got it right when I got no complaint from the compiler :-/
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
