================
@@ -194,12 +198,43 @@ Some issues with flags can be debugged using the
``verbosity=$NUM`` flag:
misspelled_flag
...
-Disabling
----------
+Disabling and suppressing
+-------------------------
-In some circumstances, you may want to suppress error reporting in a specific
scope.
+There are multiple ways to suppress error reporting when using
RealtimeSanitizer.
-In C++, this is achieved via ``__rtsan::ScopedDisabler``. Within the scope
where the ``ScopedDisabler`` object is instantiated, all sanitizer error
reports are suppressed. This suppression applies to the current scope as well
as all invoked functions, including any functions called transitively.
+In general, ``ScopedDisabler`` should be preferred, as it is the most
performant.
+
+.. list-table:: Suppression methods
+ :widths: 30 15 15 10 70
+ :header-rows: 1
+
+ * - Suppression method
+ - Specified at?
+ - Scope
+ - Run-time cost
+ - Description
+ * - ``ScopedDisabler``
+ - Compile-time
+ - Stack
+ - Very low
----------------
cjappl wrote:
Yes, I'm amenable to this, but I started down this path then aborted.
My worry was providing too much low level unnecessary detail to the user, when
a high level overview would suffice.
Given the info about what the actual cost is (vs "very low") how would I, the
user, behave differently? Is additional (possibly complex to understand)
knowledge about what is happening under the hood helpful? (honest question, I
originally decided "no" but have definitely been turning this over in my head.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112727
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
