On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany k...@google.com wrote:
One thing I overlooked before.
In the gcc patch we are using -fasan flag name, while clang uses
-f[no-]address-sanitizer
(it used to be -fasan in early patches, but was renamed before submitting to
trunk).
Do we want
Yes.
David
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany k...@google.com wrote:
One thing I overlooked before.
In the gcc patch we are using -fasan flag name, while clang uses
-f[no-]address-sanitizer
(it used to
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:48:10AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Yes.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany k...@google.com wrote:
One thing I overlooked before.
In the gcc patch we are using -fasan
yes -- there is no need to change any developer only internal names.
David
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:48:10AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Yes.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I have created a temporary branch to host the port of ASAN to
trunk. Wei has done the initial port of the original code from
Kostya. It compiles but we still do not have the runtimes (Wei
is working on that).
I have not touched nor reviewed the code in detail. Right now
I'm interested in
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I have created a temporary branch to host the port of ASAN to
trunk. Wei has done the initial port of the original code from
Kostya. It compiles but we still do not have the runtimes (Wei
is working on that).
The
On 2012-10-10 16:21 , Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I have created a temporary branch to host the port of ASAN to
trunk. Wei has done the initial port of the original code from
Kostya. It compiles but we still do not have the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* tree-asan.c: New file.
* tree-asan.h: New file.
Nit: do we still need the tree- prefix? IMHO not.
Ciao!
Steven
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* tree-asan.c: New file.
* tree-asan.h: New file.
Nit: do we still need the tree- prefix? IMHO not.
Richard Biener suggested we use gimple- as
Is there an agreed way for file naming?
David
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* tree-asan.c: New file.
* tree-asan.h: New file.
Nit: do we still need the tree- prefix? IMHO
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Is there an agreed way for file naming?
It was not my intent to start a bike shed discussion. This was just
something I've been wondering for some time. But AFAIC it's up to
Diegoco to do what they think is right :-)
Ciao!
Steven
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Is there an agreed way for file naming?
It was not my intent to start a bike shed discussion. This was just
something I've been wondering for some time. But
On 2012-10-10 16:52 , Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
* tree-asan.c: New file.
* tree-asan.h: New file.
Nit: do we still need the tree- prefix? IMHO
13 matches
Mail list logo
