Ping? On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill, > > Did you continue this discussion recently? > Any suggestions? > > Thanks, > > --kcc > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Encoding Compile Flags into the IR"? >> Yes, that's the same problem. >> Great! I can wait. >> >> --kcc >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 22, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > I'd like to resurrect an old discussion: how to selectively disable >>> ThreadSanitizer (or AddressSanitizer, etc) instrumentation >>> > for particular functions. >>> > For AddressSanitizer we currently use a function attribute >>> "AddressSafety" (if it is not set, instrumentation does not happen), >>> > but Chris doesn't like this idea (attributes are a scarce resource) >>> and he suggested to use module-level metadata instead of an attribute. >>> > >>> > The attached clang patch adds such metadata node for all functions >>> when -fthread-sanitizer is given. >>> > If that is what we want, I'll gradually change AddressSanitizer to use >>> similar approach and will kill the "AddressSafety" attribute. >>> > >>> > BTW, the code looks like this: >>> > llvm::Value *Fn[] = { F }; ... >>> > llvm::MDNode::get(VMContext, Fn); >>> > Do we want this code to look like >>> > llvm::MDNode::get(VMContext, F); >>> > (i.e. to add more llvm::MDNode::get() methods)? >>> >>> Bill has been working on something similar for command line options and >>> LTO. There's still been some chatting about it, but Bill's planning on >>> updating the list in the next few days with what's going on if waiting a >>> bit is ok? >>> >>> -eric >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
