vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This lgtm, we shouldn't defer this until https://reviews.llvm.org/D32842 is
done, as that may take a while.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35849
___
cfe-co
shenhan added a comment.
Thanks for pointing out the relevant CLs. I agree that's the clearer and better
solution.
(The only concern is that it has been sitting there for 2 months. I'll check
back.)
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35849#820473, @vsk wrote:
> This won't do the right thing if more
vsk added a reviewer: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
This won't do the right thing if more than one sanitizer with a default
blacklist is enabled. It's also problematic that a default blacklist for one
sanitizer can blacklist code for a different sanitizer. See:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32043
https
shenhan created this revision.
This is to provide a default blacklist filename for UBSan.
While UBSan is turned on, it's better that clang pick up a blacklist file (when
exists), just as what ASan / MSan does, so we do not end up adding the
"-fsanitize-blacklist" option to every command line.
