Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > You can already build and test with ASan by doing: >> > >> > make CFLAGS=-fsanitize=address test >> > >> > but there are a few slight annoyances: >> > >> > 1. It's a little long to type. >> > >> > 2. It override your CFLAGS completely. You'd probably >> > still want -O2, for instance. >> > >> > 3. It's a good idea to also turn off "recovery", which >> > lets the program keep running after a problem is >> > detected (with the intention of finding as many bugs as >> > possible in a given run). Since Git's test suite should >> > generally run without triggering any problems, it's >> > better to abort immediately and fail the test when we >> > do find an issue. >> >> Unfortunately I do not think Comparing between versions in >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs, it appears that -fsanitize-recover >> is not configurable for folks still with GCC 4.x series, and this >> patch is not very useful unless you disable the recovery for the >> purpose of running our tests as you said X-<. > > I didn't actually dig into the history of gcc support at all. Back in > the 4.x time-frame I tried using ASan and couldn't get it to work at > all. I ended up just always building with clang (which from my > mostly-ignorant view seems to to be the primary platform for ASan > development). > > Since this is an optional build that doesn't need to be available > everywhere, I'd actually be fine with saying "just use clang". But as > far as I can tell, gcc seems to work fine these days. I consider this > mostly a best-effort tool. > > I'm also not sure of the behavior without -fno-sanitize-recover. I think > ASan may barf either way. The commit message for my config.mak from a > year or two ago claims that the problem was actually with UBSan. It > would be useful in the long run for that to work, too. Yes. I'd agree with all of the above. While copyediting my response, I somehow ended up removing one paragraph before that "Unfortunately" by accident X-<, but the paragraph said essentially the same "this is optional so it is a strict improvement, and I do agree recovery must be disabled to be useful in our context". Sorry for a possible confusion.
