search for: fwhatev

...ould the APIs exposed by libcxxabi be > sufficient for the sanitizer runtimes? > How can we use libcxxabi anyway? I mean, is it shipped with compiler so that we can make Clang driver tell to link user program with libcxxabi in the same way we tell it to link with sanitizer runtimes if flags -fwhatever-sanitizer is present? > AFAICT, the only other way forward is to: > > 1) Move/re-implement the demangling (and hopefully the mangling as well) > into llvm/Support, following proper style and writing proper unittests as > we go. > 2) Write my object-file-scrubber so that we can...

...bi be >> sufficient for the sanitizer runtimes? >> > > How can we use libcxxabi anyway? I mean, is it shipped with compiler so > that we can make Clang driver tell to link user program with > libcxxabi in the same way we tell it to link with sanitizer runtimes if > flags -fwhatever-sanitizer is present? > Essentially, it could be. It's more complicated than just that though, so I was just curious if it would work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120704/78fcdb92...

In the same way that the core LLVM libraries have support routines for DWARF, I think that both mangling and demangling should be provided as well. I suspect that the 'Support' library is the best we have, although eventually we need to split this library up a bit. That's not really your problem though. The bigger problem is that we don't have any good way of sharing code between

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> > wrote: > > Hello! > > > > We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer > > testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. > > I've noticed that llvm-nm