Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "ece7d7b2".
2012 Jun 21
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: How can AddressSanitizer, ThreadSanitizer, and similar runtime libraries leverage shared library code?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> Can we alter the build system so that when building a run-time library it
> modifies all .cpp files like this:
> namespace FOO {
> <file body>
> }
> This will give us essentially the same thing, but w/o system dependent
> object file hackery.
> Maybe we can add a Clang flag
2012 Jun 21
4
[LLVMdev] RFC: How can AddressSanitizer, ThreadSanitizer, and similar runtime libraries leverage shared library code?
...ou can't wrap certain parts of it (operator new, delete, a few other
> things)
> - You can't re-use any C libraries (zlib for example)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/ece7d7b2/attachment.html>
2012 Jun 21
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: How can AddressSanitizer, ThreadSanitizer, and similar runtime libraries leverage shared library code?
Can we alter the build system so that when building a run-time library it
modifies all .cpp files like this:
namespace FOO {
<file body>
}
This will give us essentially the same thing, but w/o system dependent
object file hackery.
Maybe we can add a Clang flag to add such a namespace for us?
(This approach, as well as Chandler's original approach will have to deal
with malloc,