On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >From 9e2570eee9bb160b58075f6802d6ac1bb7b77341 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: marxin
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:27:02 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Support LLVM style of no_sanitize attribute (PR
> sanitizer/85556).
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
On 05/10/2018 11:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:28:15AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Parsing of no_sanitize attribute now supports
>> __attribute__((no_sanitize("address,undefined")))
>
> Why is that wrong? I don't see why we shouldn't support it that way.
> It matches
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:28:15AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Parsing of no_sanitize attribute now supports
> __attribute__((no_sanitize("address,undefined")))
Why is that wrong? I don't see why we shouldn't support it that way.
It matches how we handle other similar attributes, say target attr
Hi.
Parsing of no_sanitize attribute now supports
__attribute__((no_sanitize("address,undefined")))
which is wrong. And on the other hand this is not recognized:
__attribute__((no_sanitize("address", "undefined")))
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. Then I
wou
