4 ms·

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

• 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.