davidtrevelyan wrote: > > LGTM - would love some eyes from more established folks to make sure we are > > not breaking any bw-compatability foo, and seeing as this spans the tree a > > bit. > > Definitely I am for this change, I think the attr is more clear this way, > > and we caught it before LLVM 20 was cut. > > Having that it was just recently landed, I don't see a problem with breaking > bw-comp. > > Did you consider `sanitize_blocking` ?
Many thanks for taking a look and for confirming the bw-comp issue. Thanks also for the suggestion on `sanitize_blocking`. We didn't consider it initially because rtsan is the only sanitizer that currently cares about it, and we wanted to keep its scope as small as possible. However - I'm not strongly opposed to renaming it `sanitize_blocking`, especially if other sanitizers might wish to do something with it in future. I'll wait a few days here for further feedback on this before landing, otherwise assuming everyone is happy enough going with `sanitize_realtime_blocking` for now 👍 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113155 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
