kubabrecka added inline comments. ================ Comment at: test/Driver/fsanitize.c:221 @@ +220,3 @@ +// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-apple-darwin10 -resource-dir=%S/Inputs/resource_dir -fsanitize=memory -fsanitize=thread,memory %s -### 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-MSAN-TSAN-MSAN-DARWIN1 +// CHECK-MSAN-TSAN-MSAN-DARWIN1: unsupported option '-fsanitize=thread,memory' for target 'x86_64-apple-darwin10' +// CHECK-MSAN-TSAN-MSAN-DARWIN1-NOT: unsupported option ---------------- ygribov wrote: > samsonov wrote: > > beanz wrote: > > > kubabrecka wrote: > > > > samsonov wrote: > > > > > Again, I feel like we're lying to users here: `-fsanitize=thread` > > > > > *is* supported for this target, it just requires building a runtime. > > > > I'd like to see this from the point-of-view of a binary distribution. > > > > If the binary distribution (e.g. the one from llvm.org or Apple's Clang > > > > in Xcode) doesn't contain a runtime library, then the sanitizer is > > > > *not* supported in that distribution. Also, see > > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D14846, we'd like to have CMake options to > > > > select which runtimes will be built. If you deliberately choose not to > > > > build ThreadSanitizer, then that sanitizer is *not* supported in your > > > > version of Clang. If you're experimenting and porting a runtime to a > > > > new platform, then this sanitizer *is* supported in your version of > > > > Clang. > > > Maybe the point is we should have a different error message for cases > > > where the runtime is just missing. Something like "runtime components for > > > '-fsanitize=thread' not available" > > I see, so essentially you want to use a different approach for determining > > sanitizer availability (on OS X for now): if the library is present, then > > we support sanitizer, otherwise we don't: i.e. the binary distribution is > > the source of truth, not the list of sanitizers hardcoded into Clang driver > > source code. I'm fine with that, and see why it would make sense. > > > > It's just that error message looks misleading: the problem is not TSan is > > unsupported for target, it's just unavailable in this distribution for one > > reason or another. > > the binary distribution is the source of truth, not the list of sanitizers > > hardcoded into Clang driver source code. > > This will not work for cross-compilers. It _may_ be ok for OSX but not for > other platforms. Why not? On Linux, there are statically-linked sanitizers, if you want to cross-compile, you need to have the runtime libraries for the target. And dynamic libraries are a similar story – they're version-tied to the compiler and your compiler should really have the libraries of the sanitizers that it supports.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15225 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
