On 2016-09-28 00:02, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-07 17:05:10 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
>> I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any
>> mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add
>> support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks we
>> already have for valgrind.
>
> Any plans to pick this up again?
Not remembering the context, I was initially confused about what exactly
supposedly needs to be done in order to have ASan support, especially
since I've been using it for a couple of years without any kind of
modifications. Having read the whole thread now, I assume the discussion
is now about getting MSan support, since apparently it's been already
concluded that not much is needed for getting ASan support:
>> I don't even see any need offhand for a configure flag or autoconf
>> test. We could have a configure flag just to be consistent with
>> valgrind but it seems pointless. If you're compiling with asan I don't
>> see any reason to not use it. I'm building this to see if it works
>> now.
>
> I agree. A flag guards Valgrind client requests, because we'd otherwise have
> no idea whether the user plans to run the binary under Valgrind. For ASAN,
> all relevant decisions happen at build time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
