Hacker News Reader

Those sanitizers are present in gcc too[0].

[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.h...

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.

> 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

[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23910

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.

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.

ah! thanks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com