llvm dev - Dec 2013 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] lsan for LLVM bootstrap; leaks in TableGen

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>
wrote:
> Like this?
>
> +extern "C" {
> +// Disable LeakSanitizer, see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18325.
>
We don't often reference bugs in comments. I would give a brief summary in
the text of the comment, and mention the bug in the commit log.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131226/80334505/attachment.html>

This?

+extern "C" {
+// Disable LeakSanitizer for this binary as it has too many leaks that are
not
+// very interesting to fix. __lsan_is_turned_off is explained in
+// compiler-rt/include/sanitizer/lsan_interface.h
+int __lsan_is_turned_off() { return 1; }
+}  // extern "C"



On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com>wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at
google.com> wrote:
>
>> Like this?
>>
>> +extern "C" {
>> +// Disable LeakSanitizer, see
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18325
>> .
>>
>
> We don't often reference bugs in comments. I would give a brief summary
in
> the text of the comment, and mention the bug in the commit log.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131226/d7de87ac/attachment.html>

Thoughts?


On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>
wrote:
> This?
>
> +extern "C" {
> +// Disable LeakSanitizer for this binary as it has too many leaks that
> are not
> +// very interesting to fix. __lsan_is_turned_off is explained in
> +// compiler-rt/include/sanitizer/lsan_interface.h
> +int __lsan_is_turned_off() { return 1; }
> +}  // extern "C"
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at
google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Like this?
>>>
>>> +extern "C" {
>>> +// Disable LeakSanitizer, see
>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18325.
>>>
>>
>> We don't often reference bugs in comments. I would give a brief
summary
>> in the text of the comment, and mention the bug in the commit log.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140109/02302a84/attachment.html>

On Dec 25, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at
google.com> wrote:
> Like this? 
> 
> +extern "C" {
> +// Disable LeakSanitizer, see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18325.
> 
> We don't often reference bugs in comments. I would give a brief summary
in the text of the comment, and mention the bug in the commit log.
> This? 
> 
> +extern "C" {
> +// Disable LeakSanitizer for this binary as it has too many leaks that are
not
> +// very interesting to fix. __lsan_is_turned_off is explained in
> +// compiler-rt/include/sanitizer/lsan_interface.h
> +int __lsan_is_turned_off() { return 1; }
> +}  // extern “C"
[ Sorry to be joining the conversation late ]

What is the reasoning behind having them define a function to disable lsan,
rather than calling __lsan_disable?
Is it so that lsan can be turned off before main() is entered?

I’m not really happy with the idea of the user having to define a function with
a reserved name in their code.

— Marshall

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140109/48497f0d/attachment.html>