vitalybuka wrote: > @fmayer > > > I would prefer this to be behind a flag (not necessarily in this PR), even > > if it's default turned on. People might not want synthetic frames added to > > their debug information and the top frame to point to the real code; also > > as this somewhat overlaps with the logic of > > `-fsanitize-annotate-debug-info`, with a flag people can choose which one > > they want. > > Do you have a concrete use case where it would be problematic to emit the > trap reasons in debug info as the patch does? We are not opposed to adding a > flag that allows it to be disabled (e.g. `-fno-sanitize-annotated-traps` or > something similar) provided the trap reasons are emitted by default. That > being said we don't want to implement things that won't be used. What use > case(s) do you have in mind?
I am sure it will break some users how have some stack trace analyzers. Flag will unblock compiler upgrade for them. So having a flag sounds reasonable to me. I don't have opinion what should be a default for that flag. In this patch probaly (copt<> "defaut is off") is OK, and in followup patch copt -> clang flag. Given that it's done for fsanitize-annotate-debug-info, should be easy, just "replay" that patch. However that patch includes per-sanitizer granularity, which may be not needed? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145967 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
