Re: building/using address-sanitizer-enabled emacs?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:06:29 -0700
> Cc: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>, emacs-devel <address@hidden>
> 
> > I admit that I don't understand this report.  At the point where the
> > report claims there was buffer overflow, child_setup is not in the
> > call stack, because it is/was called in another process after vfork:
> > the callstack shows the stack of the Emacs process, whereas
> > child_setup is called by a child process.  So either the report shows
> > a stack of a wrong process, or something else is going on.  Or maybe I
> > simply don't understand how to read this report.
> 
> Thanks for looking.
> I confess I have not done so. Does this caveat apply?
> 
>   HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom
>   stack unwind mechanism or swapcontext

I don't think I understand this caveat, either.  Does "swapcontext"
include what happens after vfork?  IOW, is this tool known to follow
forks and track each of the 2 processes separately?