================ Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:1611-1615 @@ -1602,1 +1610,7 @@ + << lastArgumentForKind(D, Args, NeedsMsanRt); + // LSan is built into ASan, so enabling them both is redundant. + if (NeedsLsan && NeedsAsan) + D.Diag(diag::warn_drv_redundant_sanitizer) + << "-fsanitize=leak" + << "-fsanitize=address"; ---------------- Richard Smith wrote: > This seems backwards from how I'd expect this to work: if -fsanitize=address > includes this functionality, then I would have expected > -fsanitize=address,leak would be fine, and -fsanitize=address > -fno-sanitize=leak would give me ASan with no leak checking. If we can't > support the latter, then *that* is what we should warn about. > > Also, please use lastArgumentForKind rather than hard-coding strings which > may not match what the user typed. What effect would -fno-sanitize=address have? It could not disable just the address checking, or else "-fsanitize=address -fno-sanitize=address" would have the counterintuitive effect of enabling leak checking. Similarly, it could not disable both address and leak checking, because that would make "-fsanitize=leak -fsanitize=address -fno-sanitize=address" a no-op, whereas one expects it to have the same effect as -fsanitize=leak.
To make this approach consistent, we would have to separate -fsanitize=leak into two flags - one for enabling stand-alone leak checking, and one for enabling it in ASan. But that is a completely unnecessary complication. Having the leak checking code built into ASan comes at no additional cost, so there's no reason to want to disable it at link time. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D837 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
