On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: >>> Ok. A slight problem then is that where the tsan pass sits right now, there >>> is no easy way to find out if the builtin call will be expanded inline or >>> not, so (similar for asan), if we instrument them in the pass, it might be >>> instrumented twice at runtime if the builtin is expanded as a library call >>> (once the added instrumentation for the builtin, once in the intercepted >>> library call). That isn't wrong, just might need slightly more resources >>> than if we ensured we only instrument the builtin if it isn't expanded >>> inline. >>> >> >> Should inlining of those functions be disabled as if -fno-builtins is >> specified? > > Yes, it sounds reasonable. Performance characteristics under tsan > differ significantly, so most likely we don't care.
Do we still need range access functions then?
