On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:06:22AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote: > >> LGTM, with some incredibly minor nits below. Thank you for all the > >> work you've done on this! > > > > r237463, thanks for the review! > > > >> > +def NoSanitizeSpecific : InheritableAttr { > >> > + let Spellings = [GCC<"no_address_safety_analysis">, > >> > + GCC<"no_sanitize_address">, > >> > + GCC<"no_sanitize_thread">, > >> > + GNU<"no_sanitize_memory">]; > >> > >> Does GCC support no_sanitize_memory? > > > > No. > > Hah, neat. :-) > > > > >> > + .Default(""); > >> > >> I would remove the .Default case. We want to assert if we fall off the > >> switch. > > > > StringSwitch appears to require a default. Added a manual assert. > > That's news to me. It has an automatic conversion to its type that > asserts if we've flowed off the end of the StringSwitch. Check out > StringSwitch.h, line 118.
Ah, it works if I use llvm::StringSwitch<std::string>. r237475. Thanks, -- Peter _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
