On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:32:53AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 04/10/2014 05:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:23:07PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>To investigate runtime rather than compile time > >>issues, please consider using temporarily -fsanitize=undefined and/or > >>-fsanitize=address to look for undefined behavior in the packages > >>you own. > > > >Which is this in case anyone else was wondering: > > > > '-fsanitize=address' > > Enable AddressSanitizer, a fast memory error detector. Memory > > access instructions will be instrumented to detect out-of-bounds > > and use-after-free bugs. See > > <http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/> for more details. > > The run-time behavior can be influenced using the 'ASAN_OPTIONS' > > environment variable; see > > <https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/Flags#Run-time_flags> > > for a list of supported options. > > Also in case anybody else wonders about gcc failing to recognize > these options, you'll need to add BuildRequires for these: libasan > for -fsanitize=address and libubsan for -fsanitize=undefined (and > similarly for leak and thread sanitizers ) Yeah. But, note that the sanitizers are meant primarily for development, not for production, and especially -fsanitize=thread and to some extent -fsanitize=address aren't completely cheap, so if you do that, please do so temporarily and don't forget to disable it again for production. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
