Re: [PATCH 28/41] Use QEMU_SANITIZE_ADDRESS

[Thomas Huth]

On 20/04/2022 15.26, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> ---
>   tests/qtest/fdc-test.c    | 2 +-
>   util/coroutine-ucontext.c | 2 +-
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/qtest/fdc-test.c b/tests/qtest/fdc-test.c
> index 4aa72f36431f..0b3c2c0d523f 100644
> --- a/tests/qtest/fdc-test.c
> +++ b/tests/qtest/fdc-test.c
> @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ static void fuzz_registers(void)
>   
>   static bool qtest_check_clang_sanitizer(void)
>   {
> -#if defined(__SANITIZE_ADDRESS__) || __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
> +#ifdef QEMU_SANITIZE_ADDRESS
>       return true;
>   #else
>       g_test_skip("QEMU not configured using --enable-sanitizers");
> diff --git a/util/coroutine-ucontext.c b/util/coroutine-ucontext.c
> index 904b375192ca..52725f5344fb 100644
> --- a/util/coroutine-ucontext.c
> +++ b/util/coroutine-ucontext.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
>   #include <valgrind/valgrind.h>
>   #endif
>   
> -#if defined(__SANITIZE_ADDRESS__) || __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
> +#ifdef QEMU_SANITIZE_THREAD

Shouldn't that be QEMU_SANITIZE_ADDRESS instead?

 Thomas