r198858 - Disable LeakSanitizer in TableGen binaries, see PR18325
alp at nuanti.com
Thu Jan 9 04:07:13 PST 2014
On 09/01/2014 12:03, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com
> <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Chandler Carruth
> <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Kostya Serebryany
> <kcc at google.com <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
> We currently don't have any macro that is used to enable
> lsan in llvm bootstrap.
> We can easily add one, no problem, and then put this code
> under #ifdef LEAK_SANITIZER
> It would make things a bit more ugly.
> We have tow problems to solve wrt lsan and bootstrap:
> 1. Make asan+lsan bootstrap clean. This is what I need to
> solve now to enable leak checking for the entire llvm. For
> this we may also use #if __has_feature(address_sanitizer).
> 2. Make any+lsan bootstrap clean ("any" is one of asan,
> tsan, msan, <none>). This may introduce more complexity
> and that is why the current solution is nice. I don't have
> to solve this general problem though for the asan+lsan
> bootstrap bot.
> I would have some macro (or __has_feature) which is enabled by
> any flagset that links the lsan runtime library.
> That's not trivial because lsan could be used as a link-time-only
> feature (or even as LD_PRELOAD-ed library),
> so there is not way to distinguish at compile time if lsan will be
> I understand that, but the question is -- do you think that usage
> pattern will be prevalent? Is it worth putting an external definition
> in the binary *always* just to catch the case where we do a
> link-time-only flag?
> Put another way, is it really too burdensome to say that LSan does
> require a compile time flag in order to support some usage patterns?
Who controls / defines the interface?
This looks like a spectacular thinko rather than being something
intentional -- is it possible to fix it to drop one or more underscores
instead of devising workarounds?
There's never a valid reason to require user code to define reserved
names (although it's sometimes OK for user code to _use_ reserved names).
I'm heading out for a couple of hours, please gate this behind a macro
or revert until a resolution is found.
the browser experts
More information about the cfe-commits