> FWIW, I don't think that MSan was *ever* intended to not have false positives with an uninstrumented standard library. So I really don't understand why this is an interesting thing to dig into.
That is new information to me so I'll have to take that into consideration. What I was trying to avoid was breaking MSAN usability for end users of libc++. Since its unlikely that they have a instrumented standard library it would be nice if their system libc++ didn't always cause the first MSAN failure. Since __attribute__((__always_inline__)) seems to cause a lot of these failures I imagine it is possible to reduce the FP's without removing the extern template declarations. In that case it might still be work putting time into. /Eric On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Howard Hinnant <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Howard Hinnant <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I really don't think it's worth the cost of insantiating these very > >>> fundamental templates in *every single user* to work around a > limitation > >>> in the memory sanitizer. This is an unreasonable amount of overhead for > >>> standard library types. > >> > >> Always measure. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re > >> stating a performance conclusion without measurements (which should > >> never be acceptable). > > > > I did measure :) Though, I sent it to llvm-dev and it probably should've > > been cfe-dev. Sorry about that. > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-August/075793.html > > Ah, I have not been monitoring llvm-dev. Thank you for the link. > > Howard > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
