pcc added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064#728629, @rnk wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064#726861, @pcc wrote: > > > I think it would be better to move this logic to the driver and have it > > pass in an `-mllvm` flag. The sanitizer passes should really be taking no > > arguments in the constructor like the other passes, so I don't want us to > > add another argument here. > > > That seems like the opposite of the direction we've been moving, though. > cl::opt flags can't appear twice, and this means one process can't do two > asan compilations in two LLVMContexts in parallel with different settings. Yes, but adding an argument is also the wrong direction. This information should really be passed either via the module (e.g. module flags or attributes) or the TargetMachine. If we aren't going to do that, we might as well pass it via `-mllvm`, as it is simpler. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
