vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32043#728427, @pcc wrote:
> This seems reasonable to me, although it's unfortunate that the design of the > sanitizer blacklist feature does not (at present) allow different blacklists > for different sanitizers. IMO this might be a real problem. If we load multiple default blacklists, diagnostics which appear when compiling with one sanitizer could disappear when another sanitizer is enabled. So long as we don't allow different blacklists for different sanitizers, maybe there should just be one default sanitizer blacklist file. Specifically, we'd look for "sanitizer_blacklist.txt" in the resource dir. If we find it, load it (regardless of which sanitizers are enabled) and we're done. If we don't find it, fall back to the behavior in this patch (check if a sanitizer is enabled, then try to load its blacklist). Wdyt? https://reviews.llvm.org/D32043 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
