On 14/01/2014 07:23, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Richard Smith
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 13/01/2014 15:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
Alp, others,
Now that there is no urgent issue I'd like to return to
the discussion about names with "__" prefix in sanitizer
run-times.
If you're OK to conditionalize the code so it's only defined
in sanitizer builds, that's fine and as Sean pointed out
there's already plenty of precedent -- it's what every
software project does to define "__" prefixed weak link
functions like libc malloc hooks.
This discussion is so vastly far from the best use of any of our
time. Let's just restore the name we had before and wrap the
definition in __has_feature(leak_sanitizer). I think that will
make everyone happy. OK?
There is no __has_feature(leak_sanitizer) and it can't be implemented
with reasonable semantics (discussed here before).
Unless someone objects, I'll change the code back to use
__lsan_is_turned_off and hide it under __has_feature(address_sanitizer),
then I will revert my change that added an alternative to
__lsan_is_turned_off (LeakSanitizerIsTurnedOffForTheCurrentProcess)
This means that -Wreserved, -Wreserved-macros, -Wreserved-identifiers
(once implemented)
will not work on clang bootstrap in AddressSanitizer mode,
but let Alp handle this if it ever becomes a problem.
Kostya,
The change you propose _will_ work with -Wreserved as long as you
introduce the reserved name in your system header first :-)
Alp.
--kcc
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
