From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2172 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 07:39:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 372 invoked by uid 48); 26 Feb 2013 07:38:43 -0000 From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/56454] need to rename attribute no_address_safety_analysis to no_sanitize_address Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:39:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: kcc 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: 2013-02/txt/msg02432.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454 --- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-26 07:38:42 UTC --- Hm... Ok... Although there is a risk that this way we may never reach a decision. Is there a precedent of solving issues this way? How about __has_feature, by the way? Should we start this discussion on the two lists? (reminder: clang uses #if __has_feature(address_sanitizer), gcc uses #if __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__) Clang long ago refused to use a cpp macro and insisted on __has_feature. My several feeble attempts to ask for __has_feature in gcc were mostly ignored. I don't care which one is used, but the current thing (below) is ugly. // GCC does not understand __has_feature. #if !defined(__has_feature) # define __has_feature(x) 0 #endif // Clang understands __has_feature, GCC defines __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ #if __has_feature(address_sanitizer) || defined(__SANITIZE_ADDRESS__)