xen0n added inline comments.
================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/lsan/lsan_common.cpp:281 +# elif defined(__loongarch_lp64) + return ((p >> 47) == 0); # else ---------------- tangyouling wrote: > xen0n wrote: > > Since our VM layout is actually flexible, would it be better to document > > this, like "Support only the most common VM layout on LoongArch that allows > > 47 bits of user-space VMA"? Exact wording could be optimized, I'm only > > describing the gist here. > > Since our VM layout is actually flexible, would it be better to document > > this, like "Support only the most common VM layout on LoongArch that allows > > 47 bits of user-space VMA"? Exact wording could be optimized, I'm only > > describing the gist here. > > How about "Allow 47-bit user-space VMA at current"? "at present"; if you plan to revisit this later for properly supporting variable VM layouts, omitting the justification is fine to me. ================ Comment at: compiler-rt/test/asan/TestCases/Linux/leak_check_segv.cpp:4 // REQUIRES: leak-detection -#include <stdlib.h> +#include <sanitizer/lsan_interface.h> #include <stdio.h> ---------------- tangyouling wrote: > xen0n wrote: > > Why unnecessarily reorder things, especially putting this //in front of// > > the standard library includes? > > Why unnecessarily reorder things, especially putting this //in front of// > > the standard library includes? > > An automatic adjustment of the format. So you mean you're actually unable to avoid this diff damage? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139686/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139686 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
