r198885 - Revert "Disable LeakSanitizer in TableGen binaries, see PR18325"
alp at nuanti.com
Thu Jan 9 16:40:33 PST 2014
On 09/01/2014 22:48, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk
> <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Ballman
> <aaron at aaronballman.com <mailto:aaron at aaronballman.com>> wrote:
> If we're going to back out the revert, can we put the code into an
> #ifdef so that the reserved namespace identifier is protected when
> compiling with something that doesn't understand lsan? Then we can
> argue over the "right" way with some protection.
> I'm not opposed to that, if we have a suitable predefine. But we
> already have *loads* of code in Clang that defines identifiers in
> the reserved namespace (try grepping for '[A-Za-z]__[A-Za-z]' in
> include/ to find a bunch of them), and none of our supported C++
> implementations (for clang 3.5) have a problem with this, so I
> don't see that there's a lot of value in doing so.
> Further, I don't think we should slow down the efforts to get LSan
> bootstrapping effectively while we figure out the correct predefine --
> we can add one later as the discussion converges. That had been my
> plan from the beginning.
This is sounding positive.
What's the schedule?
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
the browser experts
More information about the cfe-commits