On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not concerned about the includes in ubsan_diag.cc, since I intend for > that code to be replaced in the medium term (and to be made > user-replaceable -- some applications will want to provide their own > reporting functionality). That only leaves <stdint.h> and <stddef.h>, which > are both provided by Clang. > > Mmm. Even with those two we had issues on windows, which forced us to > have include/sanitizer/common_interface_defs.h > Again, just for consistency (and for future windows porting) you may want > to use common_interface_defs.h instead of system headers. > Done. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote: > Other then the includes the patch looks great. Thanks, committed in r165533. > Two comments which you may want to address in this or future patches: > sanitizer_common has all required code to unwind and print symbolized > stack. It might be useful for environments that don't have stack > unwinder/symbolizer on SIGILL. > sanitizer_common has Printf which you may want to use instead of > fprintf(stderr, ..), for consistency and to allow redirecting to another > file. > Thanks, I'll have a look. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> wrote: > +FUNCTIONS.ubsan-i386 := > +FUNCTIONS.ubsan-x86_64 := > Do you need to define this analogous to the way we define > AsanFunctions/TsanFunctions etc. I'm sure what this variable > I've taken out the configure/make support for now. It was undertested and I wasn't confident it was right. We can add it back in with appropriate testing and validation if there's a desire for that. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> >> The patches are cool >> >> +/// \brief A description of a type. >> +class TypeDescriptor { >> Why don't use bitfields for TypeDescriptor? >> > I've switched to using two u16 fields and added explanatory comments. On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Michael Spencer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This fails to compile with -Werror. ubsan_value.cc has 3 functions >> with something similar to: >> >> SIntMax Value::getSIntValue() const { >> ... >> CHECK(0 && "unexpected bit width"); >> } >> >> Adding __builtin_unreachable(); fixes this. Does compiler-rt have a >> compatibility macro for this? >> > > Good idea. I've added UNREACHABLE(msg) macro to common sanitizer defs in > r165492. > Thanks, I've switched over to using it.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
