skc7 wrote: > > > > I remain concerned that newly developed instrumentations may require > > > > this special property. Is it useful to restrict this to HIP programs, > > > > at least before we gain more experience to comfortably apply this to > > > > other configurations? > > > > I'm also worried that this change could mask potential pass pipeline > > > > issues arising from duplicate instrumentations. > > > > > > > > > This is also not HIP specific. Anyway as @vitalybuka noted, the default > > > is to complain. > > > > > > OK, I see. > > [Instrumentation.cpp](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99439/files#diff-119f6c3c748edab915c15d7fd22306516ceee28a75ddf8ac52794a8e68ac7722) > > reports an error by default. This addresses my concern, but now the > > subject and commit message are incorrect. > > The patch was merged without fixing the misleading subject and commit > message: "[Sanitizer] Make sanitizer passes idempotent". I see that the > related patch #87265 (I know nothing about it) has "Request Changes". Is it > right to merge this?
This patch was intended to make the second run(or subsequent runs) of sanitizer passes not change any IR (make them idempotent). Is there any issue with the commit message? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99439 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
