================
@@ -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
+ - Suppresses all sanitizer error reports in the current scope and all
invoked functions.
----------------
cjappl wrote:
How are you feeling about this a week on?
I'm fine with changing it, but wanted to check to see if your opinion had
shifted. I think one thing that puts me in camp "ignored" is that anything
ignored by the ScopedDisabler will not show up in our exit statistics as a
"suppressed error count".
Therefore I think it's OK to split the terminology. If you still feel like this
would be a good idea I would change it.
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
