beanz added inline comments. ================ Comment at: test/Driver/fsanitize.c:221 @@ +220,3 @@ +// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-apple-darwin10 -resource-dir=%S/Inputs/resource_dir -fsanitize=memory -fsanitize=thread,memory %s -### 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-MSAN-TSAN-MSAN-DARWIN1 +// CHECK-MSAN-TSAN-MSAN-DARWIN1: unsupported option '-fsanitize=thread,memory' for target 'x86_64-apple-darwin10' +// CHECK-MSAN-TSAN-MSAN-DARWIN1-NOT: unsupported option ---------------- kubabrecka wrote: > samsonov wrote: > > Again, I feel like we're lying to users here: `-fsanitize=thread` *is* > > supported for this target, it just requires building a runtime. > I'd like to see this from the point-of-view of a binary distribution. If the > binary distribution (e.g. the one from llvm.org or Apple's Clang in Xcode) > doesn't contain a runtime library, then the sanitizer is *not* supported in > that distribution. Also, see http://reviews.llvm.org/D14846, we'd like to > have CMake options to select which runtimes will be built. If you > deliberately choose not to build ThreadSanitizer, then that sanitizer is > *not* supported in your version of Clang. If you're experimenting and > porting a runtime to a new platform, then this sanitizer *is* supported in > your version of Clang. Maybe the point is we should have a different error message for cases where the runtime is just missing. Something like "runtime components for '-fsanitize=thread' not available"
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15225 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
