> I don't think this is intentional. I actually think they were lost during
> some refactoring.
> We should probably have such in the implementation of CHECK*
I've reported this in
http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=284
-Y
--
You received this message because you are su
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> All,
>
> I got curious about lack of LIKELY/UNLIKELY annotations in
> implementation of CHECK* macro and asan_init checks in e.g.
> asan_malloc.cc. Is this intentional?
>
I don't think this is intentional. I actually think they were lost duri
+Dmitry, Kostya, who introduced the LIKELY macro for TSan runtime.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> All,
>
> I got curious about lack of LIKELY/UNLIKELY annotations in
> implementation of CHECK* macro and asan_init checks in e.g.
> asan_malloc.cc. Is this intentional?
>
> -
All,
I got curious about lack of LIKELY/UNLIKELY annotations in
implementation of CHECK* macro and asan_init checks in e.g.
asan_malloc.cc. Is this intentional?
-Y
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"address-sanitizer" group.
To unsubscribe from this g
