On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:43:53AM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote:
> @@ -272,7 +273,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>
> static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT asan_shadow_offset_value;
> static bool asan_shadow_offset_computed;
> -static const char *sanitized_sections;
> +static vec<char *, va_gc> *sanitized_sections;
Why don't you use static vec<char *> sanitized_section instead?
> -set_sanitized_sections (const char *secs)
> +set_sanitized_sections (const char *sections)
> {
> - sanitized_sections = secs;
> + char *pat;
> + for (unsigned i = 0;
> + sanitized_sections && sanitized_sections->iterate (i, &pat);
> + ++i)
This really should be FOR_EACH_VEC_SAFE_ELT (if you keep using va_gc
vec *) or FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT.
> + {
> + free (pat);
> + }
No {}s around single line body.
> @@ -308,16 +325,13 @@ set_sanitized_sections (const char *secs)
> static bool
> section_sanitized_p (const char *sec)
> {
> - if (!sanitized_sections)
> - return false;
> - size_t len = strlen (sec);
> - const char *p = sanitized_sections;
> - while ((p = strstr (p, sec)))
> + char *pat;
> + for (unsigned i = 0;
> + sanitized_sections && sanitized_sections->iterate (i, &pat);
> + ++i)
Similarly. Also, wonder if won't be too expensive if people use too long
list of sections. Perhaps we could cache positive as well as negative
answers in a hash table? Though, perhaps it is worth that only if this
shows up to be a bottleneck.
Jakub
