On 13 Jan 2014 23:25, "Kostya Serebryany" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Alp Toker <[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)
Sounds great, thanks. > 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. > > --kcc > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
