[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

thakis added a comment. Looks like this landed in b32d40417e25bad79e9b5bc0f0a29d7ba0222ad9 but the review feedback was never addressed. With a more fine-grained thing, we could use this to add a compile-time error to libcxxabi for D97323 . Repository: rL LLV

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

krytarowski added a comment. Herald added a project: LLVM. This is needed in the NetBSD kernel, more fine-grained checks would be acceptable too, but one global feature detection is what I need. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386/new/ https://rev

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

leonardchan added a comment. > This sounds like something that would be better handled in the build system > rather than in source code. In particular, I think you don't actually want to > detect "is this translation unit being compiled with ubsan enabled?", you > instead want to detect "is the

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386#1254483, @leonardchan wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386#1254437, @rsmith wrote: > > > I'm not at all convinced that this is a good thing. There isn't such a > > thing as "undefined behavior sanitizer". Rather, there are a whole

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

leonardchan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386#1254437, @rsmith wrote: > I'm not at all convinced that this is a good thing. There isn't such a thing > as "undefined behavior sanitizer". Rather, there are a whole bunch of > different checks that fall under the same umbrella. Th

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

rsmith added a comment. I'm not at all convinced that this is a good thing. There isn't such a thing as "undefined behavior sanitizer". Rather, there are a whole bunch of different checks that fall under the same umbrella. This test seems on the surface to be about as meaningless as `__has_feat

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rC342793: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature (authored by leonardchan, committed by ). Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386 Files: include/clang/Basic/Features.def test/L

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL342793: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature (authored by leonardchan, committed by ). Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386?vs=166

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

phosek accepted this revision. phosek added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM but you should probably a wait a day to see if sanitizer owners are fine with with this as well. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52386 __

[PATCH] D52386: [Lexer] Add udefined_behavior_sanitizer feature

leonardchan created this revision. leonardchan added reviewers: phosek, kcc, echristo, vitalybuka, morehouse. leonardchan added a project: clang. This can be used to detect whether the code is being built with UBSan using the __has_feature(undefined_behavior_sanitizer) predicate. Repository: