In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7525#121009, @rsmith wrote:
> I don't think this is the right approach; the `-fsanitize=` setting > deliberately doesn't affect whether RTTI is enabled, and I don't think we > should change that. I think we should do the following: > > - If `-fsanitize=vptr` is explicitly specified and RTTI is disabled, we > should issue an error. > - If `-fsanitize=vptr` is implied by some sanitizer group (such as > `-fsanitize=undefined`) and RTTI is disabled, we should not enable the vptr > sanitizer (perhaps with a warning). > > That presumably means handling this when we parse the sanitizer arguments, > which might require us to reorder the processing of the arguments a bit. Thanks for the comment. What would your preferred way of getting this to work, though? - Have a (public) way to turn off specific sanitizers in SanitizerArgs, before the call to addArgs (and warn in the same place we had the warning) - Have the constructor of SanitizerArgs (or addArgs) deal with it (doesn't seem very nice, especially since we'll have to repeat all this RTTI-related logic) - Another way? Thanks, Filipe http://reviews.llvm.org/D7525 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
