rsmith added a comment. > ! In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199#731252, @hfinkel wrote: > >> How about renaming this to something more like `-fsanitize=type`? > > I'm fine with that. Do you like TypeSanitizer or TypeAccessSantizer or > TypeAliasingSanitizer best?
I think calling it a type aliasing sanitizer would somewhat conflate the details of the mechanism with the fundamentals of the check itself. For example: variant<int, float> v; int &n = v.get<int>; v = 1.3f; int m = n; ... is a lifetime bug, not an aliasing bug, but would be caught by this check just the same. I'd be tempted to suggest EffectiveTypeSanitizer, since we seem to be more-or-less directly implementing C's effective type rules, except that name isn't so good for the C++ case. And in the longer term we will probably want to provide an option to enforce the real C++ lifetime rules whereby a store with certain !tbaa metadata is not sufficient to change the type of storage. > One potential concern with calling it the type sanitizer is that we have an > abbreviation overlap with the thread sanitizer. Perhaps we could abbreviate it as "tysan"? *shrug* https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
