It does have c++11, but some functions are missing. I don't know the
details of which ones are missing or why, have only seen std::to_string be
a problem so far.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:05 AM Filipe Cabecinhas <
filcab+llvm.phabrica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Vedant!
> Andrew: does Android
Thanks Vedant!
Andrew: does Android not support C++11? I don't understand why it wouldn't
have these funcions.
Thank you,
Filipe
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 at 18:58, Vedant Kumar wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Andrew Ford via Phabricator <
> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Andrew Ford via Phabricator
> wrote:
>
> andrewford added a comment.
>
> This broke the build on android due to use of std::to_string. Would someone
> mind changing it to llvm::to_string, I don't have commit access to change it
> myself. Thanks!
Should be don
andrewford added a comment.
This broke the build on android due to use of std::to_string. Would someone
mind changing it to llvm::to_string, I don't have commit access to change it
myself. Thanks!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695
___
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL289444: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers (authored
by filcab).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695?vs=61817&id=81089#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a reviewer: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks for working on this. LGTM with a nit.
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp:2506
+ assert(CheckHandler >= 0 &&
+ CheckHandler < sizeof(Sanit
filcab added a comment.
Ping!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
filcab added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#514080, @vsk wrote:
> Running sanitized programs in production sounds strange to me. But, if there
> isn't really a cost to supporting this, I suppose it's fine.
It does, and most likely this change wouldn't affect them, as I would gue
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#513723, @filcab wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#510788, @vsk wrote:
>
> > After reading through the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D19668, I
> > don't think I understood the pros/cons of using a single ABI check (like
>
filcab added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#510788, @vsk wrote:
> After reading through the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D19668, I
> don't think I understood the pros/cons of using a single ABI check (like asan
> does) versus adding version numbers to each handler routi
vsk added a subscriber: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
After reading through the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D19668, I
don't think I understood the pros/cons of using a single ABI check (like asan
does) versus adding version numbers to each handler routine. With the latter
approach, would
filcab added a comment.
Ping!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
filcab added a comment.
Ping!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21695
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
filcab created this revision.
filcab added reviewers: kcc, samsonov, rsmith.
filcab added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This adds a way for us to version any UBSan handler by itself.
The patch overrides D21289 for a better implementation (we're able to
rev up a single handler).
After this, then we c
14 matches
Mail list logo