On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:57 AM Claudiu Zissulescu-Ianculescu
wrote:
>
> > I see it now from Richard B.. Also I noticed you missed Richard S.'s
> > suggestion of using a typedef which will definitely help in the future
> > where we could even replace this with an enum class and overload the
> > bi
> I see it now from Richard B.. Also I noticed you missed Richard S.'s
> suggestion of using a typedef which will definitely help in the future
> where we could even replace this with an enum class and overload the
> bitwise operators to do the right thing.
>
Indeed, I've missed that message. Do
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 2:51 AM Claudiu Zissulescu-Ianculescu
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> >
> > Currently, the data type of sanitizer flags is unsigned int, with
> > SANITIZE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK (1UL << 31) being highest individual
> > enumerator for enum sanitize_code. Use 'uint64_t' data type to
Hi,
>
> Currently, the data type of sanitizer flags is unsigned int, with
> SANITIZE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK (1UL << 31) being highest individual
> enumerator for enum sanitize_code. Use 'uint64_t' data type to allow
> for more distinct instrumentation modes be added when needed.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025, 4:12 AM
wrote:
> From: Indu Bhagat
>
> Currently, the data type of sanitizer flags is unsigned int, with
> SANITIZE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK (1UL << 31) being highest individual
> enumerator for enum sanitize_code. Use 'uint64_t' data type to allow
> for more distinct instrumenta
From: Indu Bhagat
Currently, the data type of sanitizer flags is unsigned int, with
SANITIZE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK (1UL << 31) being highest individual
enumerator for enum sanitize_code. Use 'uint64_t' data type to allow
for more distinct instrumentation modes be added when needed.
gcc/ChangeLog:
