8, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Aaron Ballman
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Adrian Zgorzalek wrote:
>>>>> Feedback applied, new patch in the attachment.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for working on this! A few comments:
>
PM, Adrian Zgorzalek wrote:
>>>> Feedback applied, new patch in the attachment.
>>>
>>> Thank you for working on this! A few comments:
>>>
>>>> From 13f4df6def5f26768f9ea048e013f779bb4a7814 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Adria
w comments:
>
>> From 13f4df6def5f26768f9ea048e013f779bb4a7814 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Adrian=20Zgorza=C5=82ek?=
>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:55:53 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix ICE in Clang when dealing with
>> attribute(__no_sanitize_
ck applied, new patch in the attachment.
>>
>> Thank you for working on this! A few comments:
>>
>>> From 13f4df6def5f26768f9ea048e013f779bb4a7814 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Adrian=20Zgorza=C5=82ek?=
>>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 201
, 7 Oct 2015 15:55:53 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix ICE in Clang when dealing with
> attribute(__no_sanitize_*__)
>
> Summary:
>
> Both syntaxes: __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) and
> __attribute__((__no_sanitize__address__)) are valid, following
> documentation:
>
Feedback applied, new patch in the attachment.
Adrian
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Adrian Zgorzalek wrote:
>
> Great! I did not notice, that we already have exactly the same logic in
> SemaDeclAttr.cpp.
> Maybe it would be possible even to refactor it in such a way that this code
> is writte
Great! I did not notice, that we already have exactly the same logic in
SemaDeclAttr.cpp.
Maybe it would be possible even to refactor it in such a way that this code is
written only once.
Adrian
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>
> (Removing llvm-commits, adding cfe-commits)
(Removing llvm-commits, adding cfe-commits)
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Adrian Zgorzalek via llvm-commits
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Here is an attempt to fix https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25067.
Thank you for working on this!
>
> Summary:
>
> After introducing no_sanitize, we try to map no_
