================
@@ -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
----------------
davidtrevelyan wrote:
Totally understood, and well phrased question - is what is happening under the
hood helpful? In general it depends on the context, of course. For something
like choosing between `std::map` vs `std::unordered_map` for performance
reasons, it's critical to know what's happening under the hood. For choosing
what json library to use in an application that isn't performance sensitive, it
doesn't matter - I just care about the API being easy to use. So where does
rtsan fall on that spectrum? I think probably somewhere in the middle, but I
suspect leaning more towards the "I don't care" side. So maybe we just leave
this as it is, and add more detail if people request it? I don't feel strongly
either way on this one, just wanted to raise the question in case it rung some
alarm bells.
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
