From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25972 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2012 05:24:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 24254 invoked by uid 48); 20 Nov 2012 05:23:32 -0000 From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/55397] [asan] -faddress-sanitizer should define a CPP macro Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:24:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01874.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55397 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-20 05:23:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Note that this will be incompatible with what clang uses > (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html#has_feature) > Clang will never use a CPP macro (I've lost this battle a year ago). > > Just FYI. I don't know how much compatibility we want and can achieve. has feature will most likely not be implemented in GCC so CPP macro is correct for GCC. If clang wants to have a non-standard way of doing CPP macro for features, that is up to them.