On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Alexander Potapenko <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't seen the patch yet, but here are two thoughts: > - some tools may be incompatible with each other (e.g. ASan and TSan), so we > shouldn't allow to use them together;
Patch 2 adds a diagnostic if the user attempts to combine checkers which require the asan runtime with checkers which require the tsan runtime. (Currently, it also diagnoses if either of those is combined with any of the ubsan checks, but that's a limitation I aim to remove very soon). > - there are many users of TSan and ASan, thus we can't easily rename the > corresponding command line options. The right thing to do is to make > -fsanitize fully functional, announce that and then remove the existing > flags. I'm undecided on this. The patch, as it stands, continues to allow the older options for compatibility. I don't expect them to bring any significant maintenance costs. On the other hand, the -f*-sanitizer switches haven't been around for very long, so if there's consensus that they should be removed, I'd be OK with that too. > I'm also unsure whether having such an umbrella flag for such different > tools won't confuse the users. >From an end-user's perspective, I think the tools are more similar than they are different, and having a mechanism to enable the ubsan checkers individually which can't also be used for asan and tsan would be surprising -- especially since there are a couple of ubsan checkers which would need the asan runtime (I'm not sure if any would need the tsan runtime). _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
