beanz added a comment.
Mostly formatting comments. I think for the most part this is the right way to
go, but I don't really feel qualified to approve this. The one thing I'm not
sure about on this is, do we really want this to be darwin-only? I kinda think
it might be nice if we unified this behavior across all platforms.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp:204
@@ -203,2 +203,3 @@
const SanitizerMask Supported = setGroupBits(TC.getSupportedSanitizers());
+ const SanitizerMask RequiresTrap =
setGroupBits(TC.getSanitizersRequiringTrap());
ToolChain::RTTIMode RTTIMode = TC.getRTTIMode();
----------------
80 col
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp:240
@@ +239,3 @@
+ if ((Add & TrappingKinds) == 0) {
+ if (SanitizerMask KindsToDiagnose = Add & RequiresTrap &
~DiagnosedKinds) {
+ std::string Desc = describeSanitizeArg(*I, KindsToDiagnose);
----------------
Also 80 col violation.
Please clang-format.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains.cpp:1243
@@ -1214,2 +1242,3 @@
+
SanitizerMask Darwin::getSupportedSanitizers() const {
SanitizerMask Res = ToolChain::getSupportedSanitizers();
----------------
I'm not super familiar with the driver code, but I wonder if this can't be
better abstracted.
I'd really like to see all operating systems have the same behavior for this,
so I think much of the code can be shared.
If the runtime library exists for a sanitizer (any sanitizer) I don't see any
reason clang shouldn't then support the flags.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains.cpp:1258
@@ -1223,1 +1257,3 @@
+ if (!SanitizerRuntimeExists("ubsan")) {
+ Res |= (SanitizerKind::Undefined & ~SanitizerKind::Vptr &
~SanitizerKind::Function);
}
----------------
Last time I'll comment this, please clang-format.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15225
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
