On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 04:49:04PM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:42:50AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote: > >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > These constructs were added to clang in r237055 and r237056. > >> > >> Thank you; I was just slightly too out of date to have them. Having > >> fetched, I'm back on the same page. > >> > >> I don't think a variadic enumeration argument will be worth the effort > >> given the structure of Sanitizers.def. However, the current approach > >> is still incorrect. For instance, the attribute will not round-trip a > >> pretty printing, and it fails to diagnose illogical values that wind > >> up being ignored. > > > > FWIW, this is deliberate. We shouldn't diagnose unknown sanitizers because > > there ought to be a way to supply a no_sanitize attribute for any particular > > sanitizer in a way that is backwards compatible with older versions of Clang > > that do not support the sanitizer. > > I understand the backwards compatibility argument, however, silently > ignoring attributes is something we generally try to warn on. The > benefit of having the warning is that it shows you times you > accidentally have a typo in your warning, which is trivial to > overlook. Users can turn the warning off if it turns out to be chatty > for them (I would make a new diagnostic for this, not attempt to reuse > an old one).
Fair point, done. Thanks, -- Peter _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
