vitalybuka added a comment. In D105726#2875482 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D105726#2875482>, @kstoimenov wrote:
> Modified UsersManual.rst and added a test. Couldn't find a relevant section in > AddressSanitizer.rst and adding a new one is outside of the scope of this > change. something like: Limitations .... AddressSanitizer increases binary size. Use -fsanitize-address-instrument... to reduce the overhead. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:1652 +**-f[no-]sanitize-address-instrument-via-callback** + ---------------- Here "Callback" here does not match common meaning of this term and it's just out internal detail. **-f[no-]sanitize-address-inline-instrumentation** or even **-f[no-]sanitize-address-inline** or **-f[no-]sanitize-address-outline-instrumentation** ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1564 + HelpText<"Always use callback for the address sanitizer">; +def fnosanitize_address_instrument_via_callback : Flag<["-"], "fnosanitize-address-instrument-via-callback">, + Group<f_clang_Group>, ---------------- no- ================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fsanitize.c:254 +// CHECK-ASAN-CALLBACK-OK: "-mllvm" "-asan-instrumentation-with-call-threshold=0" +// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-linux-gnu -fsanitize=address -fnosanitize-address-instrument-via-callback %s -### 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-ASAN-NOCALLBACK +// CHECK-ASAN-NOCALLBACK-NOT: "-mllvm" "-asan-instrumentation-with-call-threshold=0" ---------------- Maybe test pairs to make sure the last one is selected "-fno-sanitize- -fsanitize-" "-fsanitize- -no-fsanitize-" Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105726/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105726 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
