5 ms·

Maybe he's talking about the sanitizers? eg: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html

pksadiq 9y ago
Those sanitizers are present in gcc too[0]. [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.h...
- kevindqc 9y ago
  ah! thanks
- ndesaulniers 9y ago
  Present != Equal, feature wise. Not by a long shot. At the same conf, one of my friends who develops the sanitizers said it's easier to develop for LLVM, so that's where Dev work is done.
  - pksadiq 9y ago
    > Present != Equal, feature wise. It is developed by google[0] afaik. The link says it is present in LLVM and gcc. I don't know what makes the difference (may be License?). On the contrary I have felt gcc better for my work. I have been following a clang bug[1] for long and have seen no fix so far. [0] https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer [1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23910 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23910
    - pebers 9y ago
      Clang has better support for plugins and calling it as a library; that sort of thing was resisted by GCC. Google has a bunch of large-scale tooling based on the Clang frontend which AFAIK wouldn't be possible with GCC.
      - jcelerier 9y ago
        sure sure, but today (and even two years ago) you can add -fsanitize={address,undefined,etc} on both clang and gcc. So this does not answer the question.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sanxiyn 9y ago
All sanitizers are also available in GCC, so no.
- bitcharmer 9y ago
  Are you sure? Last time I checked the ones llvm had and gcc did not were: Dynamic alloca overflow detection Symbol size changing for global variables Adaptive global redzone sizes Invalid pointer pairs detection Support for no_sanitize attribute Support for dead stripping of globals on Linux I might be out of date on some or even all, so please correct me where I'm wrong. Thank you in advance.
- ndesaulniers 9y ago
  Wrong. Not all kernel versions.
albinofrenchy 9y ago
Sanitizers are run-time tools; I'd be surprised if any of them worked out of the box with the kernel. Address sanitizer was "ported" to the kernel a while ago; not sure if UBSAN is or will be in the future.
- ndesaulniers 9y ago
  There are kernel versions. KASAN, KUBSAN, KMSAN.

pksadiq 9y ago

Those sanitizers are present in gcc too[0]. [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.h...

kevindqc 9y ago
ah! thanks
ndesaulniers 9y ago
Present != Equal, feature wise. Not by a long shot. At the same conf, one of my friends who develops the sanitizers said it's easier to develop for LLVM, so that's where Dev work is done.
- pksadiq 9y ago
  > Present != Equal, feature wise. It is developed by google[0] afaik. The link says it is present in LLVM and gcc. I don't know what makes the difference (may be License?). On the contrary I have felt gcc better for my work. I have been following a clang bug[1] for long and have seen no fix so far. [0] https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer [1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23910 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23910
  - pebers 9y ago
    Clang has better support for plugins and calling it as a library; that sort of thing was resisted by GCC. Google has a bunch of large-scale tooling based on the Clang frontend which AFAIK wouldn't be possible with GCC.
    - jcelerier 9y ago
      sure sure, but today (and even two years ago) you can add -fsanitize={address,undefined,etc} on both clang and gcc. So this does not answer the question.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sanxiyn 9y ago

All sanitizers are also available in GCC, so no.

bitcharmer 9y ago
Are you sure? Last time I checked the ones llvm had and gcc did not were: Dynamic alloca overflow detection Symbol size changing for global variables Adaptive global redzone sizes Invalid pointer pairs detection Support for no_sanitize attribute Support for dead stripping of globals on Linux I might be out of date on some or even all, so please correct me where I'm wrong. Thank you in advance.
ndesaulniers 9y ago
Wrong. Not all kernel versions.

albinofrenchy 9y ago

Sanitizers are run-time tools; I'd be surprised if any of them worked out of the box with the kernel. Address sanitizer was "ported" to the kernel a while ago; not sure if UBSAN is or will be in the future.

ndesaulniers 9y ago
There are kernel versions. KASAN, KUBSAN, KMSAN.