================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp:830
@@ -829,1 +829,3 @@
+ else if (LangOpts.getStackProtector() == LangOptions::SSPSafeStack)
+ Builder.defineMacro("__SAFESTACK__", "4");
----------------
theraven wrote:
> It would be worth surveying a corpus of code and seeing what uses the __SSP
> defines. We may find that it's worth defining some of them in SafeStack
> mode, as it may cause the same kind of breakage.
Note that AddressSanitizer does not define any preprocessor symbol.
I tried to introduce __ADDRESS_SANITIZER__ but failed to convince the clang
folks.
Instead, we use __has__feature(address_sanitizer), which is sadly incompatible
with GCC's asan implementation, but works fine.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6095
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
