r198858 - Disable LeakSanitizer in TableGen binaries, see PR18325

[Richard Smith]

On 13 Jan 2014 23:25, "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Richard Smith <richardsmith at google.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/01/2014 15:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alp, others,
>>>>
>>>> Now that there is no urgent issue I'd like to return to the discussion
about names with "__" prefix in sanitizer run-times.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're OK to conditionalize the code so it's only defined in
sanitizer builds, that's fine and as Sean pointed out there's already
plenty of precedent -- it's what every software project does to define "__"
prefixed weak link functions like libc malloc hooks.
>>
>>
>> This discussion is so vastly far from the best use of any of our time.
Let's just restore the name we had before and wrap the definition in
__has_feature(leak_sanitizer). I think that will make everyone happy. OK?
>
>
> There is no __has_feature(leak_sanitizer) and it can't be implemented
with reasonable semantics (discussed here before).
> Unless someone objects, I'll change the code back to use
__lsan_is_turned_off and hide it under __has_feature(address_sanitizer),
> then I will revert my change that added an alternative to
__lsan_is_turned_off (LeakSanitizerIsTurnedOffForTheCurrentProcess)

Sounds great, thanks.

> This means that  -Wreserved, -Wreserved-macros, -Wreserved-identifiers
(once implemented)
> will not work on clang bootstrap in AddressSanitizer mode,
> but let Alp handle this if it ever becomes a problem.
>
> --kcc
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140114/fa5fe871/attachment.html>