Not only was this not a sanitizer issue, it was a valid warning from clang, so I guess I'm 0/2 on this one. I've made an improved commit in r210338 that uses llvm_unreachable to silence the warning.
~Aaron On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just to make sure, did you mean this: >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/10289/steps/bootstrap%20clang/logs/stdio >> ? >> This is clang build using -DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=ON and report comes from >> clang, sanitizers are not involved, right? >> >> If you think this is a false positive, shouldn't we fix it in clang? > > Ah, yes, I did mean that, but I see now that it's not a sanitizer > that's at fault. Things suddenly make more sense. :-) Yes, I do think > we should fix it in clang. I'll see if I can repro in a smaller test > case and report it. > > Thanks! > > ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
